Of Persons, Corporations, Money and Speech

These are the times that try men's souls. On the one hand we have the Supreme Court of the United States empowering corporations at a time when they already come far too close to owning our representatives, our government and our country. On the other, we have a populace that doesn't understand how our most fundamental principles tie to either this question or the trying of accused terrorists.

Someone MUST speak out about the nature of our Rights and our Constitution.

We seem to have forgotten the truths that our founding fathers took to be self-evident, the principles to which our nation was dedicated. Many on the left are decrying the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision, while at the same time civil libertarians often thought to be on the left have spoken in defense of the decision. As it turns out the questions here are not simple, and to work them out requires really knowing both how the system works and what the underlying principles are. It's not easy stuff, and we seem unprepared for it.

Let me start by agreeing with those who fear undue influence and power is given to the corporations, domestic, foreign and multinational by this decision. This decision does, in fact, remove important safeguards against the super-rich corporations overwhelming our electoral process with huge amounts of money. Not only that, but it opens our government to the influence of foreign money and foreign-owned corporations. It's easy to sneer at that last accusation (one Supreme Court Justice did just that), claiming that the decision only applies to US corporations, but that ignores the fact that being incorporated in one of the United States is very different from being owned exclusively or mostly by US citizens. Citgo, for instance is incorporated in the US, but it is owned by Petróleos de Venezuela. It is a "US corporation", ye, but it is also an entirely "foreign owned corporation". If Citgo has a right of free speech that allows it to finance political campaigns in the US, then Hugo Chavez who runs the government of Venezuela, who owns PDV, who owns Citgo, has that right. Many people think that this is not a good thing.

But let me also say that people like Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley also have a very real and valid point that the decision in Citizens United, which empowers Citgo, and PDV and Venezuela and Chavez is based on long standing principles of Constitutional law, law that has both important practical justifications and a basis in our most sacred principles. Greenwald has written on the topic at "What the Supreme Court got right" and "Follow-up on the Citizens United case". I recommend reading both, though I do not agree with everything that he wrote. Turley wrote a lengthy commentary in his blog and spoke about the topic on a segment of Countdown.

Greenwald makes the point that none of the nine Justices agree with those of us who argue that it is a problem that the law holds that corporations are people and that money is speech. On the latter he lays out a rather specific challenge. He says that if we are to claim that speech isn't money then we have to explain what will protect us from laws like the following (he gives several hypothetical examples, I'm using one for brevity):

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money to criticize laws enacted by the Congress; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such laws, provided no money is spent;"

My own response is that this is absolutist rhetorical flummery, that if money is speech, you get into problems just as deep:

If money is speech, then the First Amendment must give me the right to pay my Congressman to take an action I wish him to, because I have the right to tell him what I want him to do.

Clearly I have a right to tell my representative what I want him to do. If I cannot, I have lost not only the right of free speech, but also the right to representation, which is definitionally inherent in a Republic. But that doesn't give me the right to put my money where my mouth is and pay him to vote my way. That's bribery and corruption.

In the end, I do not believe that either absolute extreme, that money is speech or that money has nothing to do with freedom of speech is tenable, but, and it is a big "but", but Constitutionally protected rights, natural rights tend to be absolutist. That is one of their strengths. "Congress shall make no law..." like "Thou shall commit no murder" (I hope you'll forgive my slightly non-traditional, but I believe accurate translation of the Commandment) is strong because it is a prohibition. once you get into qualifying them you start allowing loop holes and we all know where that gets you.

I think we need to recognize that Constitutionally protected rights are not an artifact of law, are not granted by the government, judges or the Founders, but are rather natural rights, with which we are endowed by our Creator, whatever you consider said Creator to be. Corporations, are NOT natural, though. They ARE social constructs, the product of law, goverment and the consensus of society. When we constitute them, when we incorporate them as entities within our legal system, I think we have to say that they have rights, but that those rights are not inherent, that they derive from the rights of the people they comprise, and who create the corporations. We endow the corporations with rights and we can limit them.

Similarly, money is a social construct and while there are certainly moral aspects to money and to its use, it is not, in and of itself, speech. It can be used to enable or discourage speech and can be used to violate the rights of others, or with deference to their rights or to empower people, ourselves or others with regard to their rights. "Money is speech, speech is protected, money is thus protected" is a nice syllogism. It is simple and understandable, it is easy to derive conclusions from it. But it is oversimplified.

Einstein was right. "Make everything as simple as possible. And no Simpler."

Where does that analysis get us? Certainly NOT to a Constitutional amendment. But, given that corporations are created by legislation, Why can't legislation explicitly limit and define the rights and obligations they have? And since corporations are primarily commercial in nature, why can't regulating them be a federal function? The state laws define and control corporations and the methods of incorporation, but in the name of regulating interstate commerce, cannot the federal government set certain limits on corporations and the laws that control them?

This ties in to a number of issues before us today:

1. The empowering of corporations on the grounds of free speech.
2. Regarding money as speech and thus giving the extremely rich a greater practical right to "speak".
3. The influence of foreign money through the free speech of US incorporated, foreign owned corporations.
4. The right of all US citizens and anyone in the US to habeas corpus and trial by jury.
5. "Getting FISA right" and the potential abuse of the USA PATRIOT Act.
6. A system which allows the government to try accused terrorists in whichever court they know they can convict them in.

For all of these, it is important to understand the nature of rights in US Constitutional principles. We need to ground these discussions not only in what makes us safe from terrorists or corporations or corruption, but in terms of the natural rights that all men are endowed with and which we the people do not allow our government to violate. Our fundamental, natural rights are not granted by the government, the King, or the Constitution, and understanding that, and the principles our whole system is based on is both important and sadly lacking in the discussion of a lot of these and other critical issues.

Alberto Gonzalez: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution"

In my last posting, I made a last minute reference to an exchange between Attorney General Gonzales and Arlen Specter during Senate hearings on January 18th wherein Gonzalez denied the existence of a Constitutional right of habeas corpus. At that time, I suggested that Attorney General might be right as suggested in a posting over at the Daily Kos. The whole issue came up after I already posted my first version to Vox, and so I didn't have a lot of time to research and contemplate the issue.

With time to consider it, I believe that at best the Attorney General is mistaken and at worst he was using rhetorical trickery in a deliberate attack on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

To recap, the exchange went as follows. I have added a bit of what led up to the comment. A fuller transcript and video are available at Think Progress.

Specter: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees [... text elided]

Gonzales: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

[further exchange elided]

Gonzales: “[...] there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,”

Specter: “Wait a minute... The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

The key claim here, of course, is that "there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution". And of course that's correct, but very misleading. The thing that you have to remember is that—and this is critical—the Constitution does not grant rights to the people. The constitution has no expressed grant of habeas corpus, because it has no grants whatsoever!

Perhaps the most important thing in the whole constitution is its first three words: "We, the People". The US Constitution is a groundbreaking document because unlike previous charters and constitutions, it derives its authority and power from the people, and not a grant from King or other "greater power". What makes it different is that in it the people grant the government certain powers. The most radical and important statement in the whole document is that "We, the People of the United States, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This sentence and its wording are important. We not only establish the constitution and the government that it defines, we "ordain" it, which means "To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact", and carries the connotation of "invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders". English law, on the other hand originates with the granting of rights by the King who ruled either by divine right or by right of conquest. We in America, on the other hand, "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights", and that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

So, when Attorney General Gonzalez says. "there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution" he is telling the absolute truth, but his statement doesn't mean what it sounds like. It doesn't mean that there is no such right and it doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't protect that right. When he says "“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus", it doesn't mean a thing. The Constitution doesn't grant or assure us the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness either. It doesn't have to. It assumes them.

The key, meaningful claim that he makes in the controversial passage is "It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion". And what that means is that when we, the people, created the government, specifically the legislature, as this is Article I, we ceded Congress the right to suspend habeas corpus only in certain specific circumstances. By mentioning the right (or privilege) and ceding the power to suspend it in certain circumstances we also assured ourselves that it could not be taken away in any other circumstances.

And here is part of the tragedy I wrote of in my first posting. We allow phrases like "Constitutional right" to trick us into thinking that this country is like a monarchy or other authoritarian state wherein rights are granted to the people. That's not the case. We are born with them and we reserve them. In some limited and specific circumstances we cede some of them to the state, but barring the explicit relinquishing of our rights, they are ours by nature or by the grant of our Creator. If we lose our rights because we allow ourselves to be convinced that they were never granted to us then that is truly tragic.

This brings us to the passages I added to the quotation above, the ones that make me wonder at the Attorney General's motives. Senator Specter starts out by talking about the Constitution the way it actually works. He speaks of the explicit provision that habeas may not be suspended. Gonzalez responds by drawing the distinction between the "constitutional right" and "statutory right" to habeas, and says that SCOTUS was dealing only with the "statutory right". Specter then responds that he is wrong that they deal with the "constitutional right", and then after they differ on that, which depends on Specter accepting the usage and concept of a "constitutional right", Gonzalez points out that there is no "express grant" of the "constitutional right". Please note that he was the one who introduced the term "constitutional right to habeas", which he now says the Constitution doesn't grant, and implies doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, why did he even speak about it?

As I was searching the Internet for a transcript that included Specter's question, I came across the following on Jeff Strabone's blog:

Gonzales: I was just simply making an observation that there isn't an expressed grant. My understanding is that in the debate during the framing of the Constitution there was discussion as to whether or not there should be an expressed grant, and a decision was made not to do so. But what you see in the language is a compromise. I think the fact that in 1789, the Judiciary Act, that they passed statutory habeas for the first time, may reflect -- maybe -- I don't want to say a concern, but why pass a statutory right so soon after the Constitution? Perhaps, because it wasn't express grant of habeas.

Up until I read this, I might have believed that the whole bait and switch introduction of the "constitutional right of habeas" for which there was "no express grant" wasn't deliberate trickery, but then he pulls this stunt! First of all, there was no suggestion that there should be an "express grant". The founders knew that the state doesn't grant rights to the people. What was proposed was that the passage should read as follows, based on the Massachusetts and New Hampshire constitutions:

The privileges and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this government in the most expeditious and ample manner: and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding ___ months.

After about a week, this was changed to:

The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended; unless where in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The original New England version did not attempt to grant a right. Rather it tried to insure that its implementation be full and timely and that any suspension have a specific time limit.

As to why the Judiciary Act was passed immediately, first off the Constitution ordained that there should be a federal judiciary, but it didn't define the details. The Act determined the number of Supreme Court justices, defined the federal district and circuit courts and defined their jurisdictions, powers and responsibilities. Until it was passed there were no actual courts. Thus it needed to be passed as soon as possible.

As to why it addressed habeas corpus, Chief Justice John Marshall explained that in Ex parte Bollman, the case which established Supreme Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction. First off, he points out that in a country with "courts which are created by written law ... the power to award the writ by any of the courts ... must be given by written law". To this he added the observation that,

It may be worthy of remark, that this act was passed by the first congress of the United States, sitting under a constitution which had declared "that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety might require it."

Acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, they must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity; for if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted. Under the impression of this obligation, they give, to all the courts, the power of awarding writs of habeas corpus.

It is hard to believe that the Attorney General is unaware of these facts. You could learn them easily from The Founders Constitution web site or FindLaws' Annotated Constitution, or even the Wikipedia, all using Google. For him to speculate the way he has, consigning the right to the Great Writ to the maybe/perhaps world of dubious rights never expressly granted is reprehensible.

We must not let Orwellian Double Speak and rhetorical trickery deceive us about our most fundamental rights.

Don't believe me. Inform yourself. Protect your freedom. Vote. Write your representatives. Inform your family and friends.

JimB.