I believe that Corporations being legally the same as living persons is the holy grail of extremist conservatives.

But the real bottom line question is, “Do Republicans want to end Democracy in the United States and begin the modified form of Monarchy that is called Plutocracy?”

The Washington Post                                   

Mr or Ms. AT&T?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011; A14 

“IF CORPORATIONS must be treated as "persons" for the purpose of campaign contributions - as the Supreme Court mandated last year in the infamous Citizens United decision - why shouldn't they also enjoy "personal privacy"?

This bizarre question is at the heart of a case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The case threatens to weaken an important tool used to hold government and corporations accountable.”

I believe that the “business plan” of the Conservative wing of Republican Party that controls the RNC is abolishing the “New Deal” in all of its forms; including as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah points out Child Labor Laws. I think the purpose of all this is to return the United States to Karl Rove’s “Looking Glass” view of the “Gilded Age.

"A view opposing Karl Rove and the Conservative Republican's "Looking Glass" view of the "Gilded Age" is in the:

"Growth of the American Republic, the historians Morrison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg describe how in that era 'privilege controlled politics,' and “the purchase of votes, the corruption of election officials, the bribing of legislatures, the lobbying of special bills, and the flagrant disregard of laws threatened the very foundations of the country.”

FROM:

Bill Moyers: “Welcome to the Plutocracy!”

2010 NOVEMBER 7

by Steve Beckow

 Can the people promoting the undoing of the "New Deal" come in the form of University Law Professors?

Richard Epstein:

“The punch line is this: How could we possibly run a society in which corporations did not have some rights of speech and of property?”

FROM;

Do Corporations Like Citizens United and AT&T Have the Same Rights as Us?

Richard Epstein · Sep. 30 at 5:02am

 Although they called themselves “Property Rights” advocates I believe that the real goal of the “Property Rights” movement was to abolish the “New Deal” and that advocating for “Property Rights” against Eminent Domain was a means to an end. I believe that Coatesville was just one of the victims of the “Property Rights” advocates march through local governments in the Conservative Republican “War against the New Deal”.

More about Mr. Epstein here:

“The regulatory takings movement appears to have its origins in the libertarian school of legal thought associated with the University of Chicago and epitomized by professor Richard Epstein. Epstein's 1985 book, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, provided the impetus for a regulatory takings legal and legislative strategy. It is useful to examine Epstein's writings, for although proponents of regulatory takings legislation invariably argue that the scope of such laws would be finite, Epstein openly asserts that his position on regulatory takings "invalidates much of the twentieth century legislation," including the National Labor Relations Act, minimum wage laws, civil rights legislation, virtually all government entitlement programs, and quite possibly Social Security. In fact, Epstein proposes to challenge the entire New Deal as "inconsistent with the principles of limited government and with the constitutional provisions designed to secure that end."

 For instance, Epstein argues that minimum wage laws are ‘undoubted partial takings, with all the earmarks of class legislation, which requires their complete constitutional invalidation.’ Under regulatory takings doctrine, employers forced to pay a statutory minimum wage higher than wages set by free market forces suffer from a government takings of their property. ‘Collective bargaining,’ Epstein asserts, ‘is yet another system in which well-defined markets are displaced by complex common pool devices whose overall wealth effects are in all likelihood negative and whose disproportionate impact, especially on established firms, is enormous.’

 …Also, if the state takings statutes now on the books are upheld by the courts, we may well find ourselves on the slippery slope toward the rollback of the New Deal advocated by Epstein. For, once regulatory takings doctrine is ruled constitutional, there is little to prevent its application beyond wetlands and wildlife protection to minimum wage laws, civil rights statutes, and other public interest legislation.”

FROM:

Regulatory Takings & Private Property Rights

by Tarso Ramos

Richard Epstein University of Chicago