[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won!

Joe Lynn joelynn114 at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 7 11:24:11 PST 2008 

I should have said that it has come to stand for the principle of corporate
personhood.


On 11/7/08 7:31 AM, "David Fairley" <pamndave at speakeasy.net> wrote:

> In the Southern Pacific case, the Supreme Court did not set a precedent
> that ruled corporations are persons.  There's a short Wikipedia article on
> this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
> 
> Here's what it says:
> 
> 'Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the
> meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts
> and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on
> this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice
> Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on
> the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
> Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these
> corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." This quotation was
> printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the
> opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any
> legal precedential value. Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's
> essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming
> part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by
> statute or formal judicial decision.'
> 
> 
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:11:00 -0800, Joe Lynn <joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I¹ve mentioned the resonance between the Dred Scott decision and the
>> Southern Pacific case, which granted to corporations the personal rights
>> guaranteed by the Constitution.  In his debates with Sen. Douglass,
>> Lincoln
>> addressed the role of the public in confronting the Dred Scott
>> decision.  He
>> believed the Constitution invested the other branches of government a
>> role
>> in challenging antidemocratic Supreme Court decisionson questions
>> involving
>> personhood.   Perhaps a challenge to Southern Pacific would draw on his
>> savvy lawyering. There¹s plenty of recent precedent with right wing
>> movements attempting to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/6/08 8:31 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's already happened in individual communities. That's the whole
>>> point. To
>>> challenge corporate personhood on the local level because states and
>>> the Feds
>>> won't do it..
>>> 
>>> Rita Goldberger wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   Ending corporate personhood is one of Ralph Nader's
>>>>  chief proposals. I don't think it can be done on a local
>>>>  or even state level.? I think it requires a constitutional
>>>>  amendment on the national level.? On a local level,
>>>>  however, we could pass a non-binding resolution
>>>>  calling on Congress and the Senate to pass such an
>>>>  amendment.
>>>>  ?
>>>>  Rita Goldberger
>>>> 
>>>> --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Susan King <funking at mindspring.com>
>>>> <mailto:funking at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Susan King <funking at mindspring.com>
>>>>> <mailto:funking at mindspring.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have
>>>>> Already
>>>>> Won!
>>>>> To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability at sfgreens.org>
>>>>> <mailto:sustainability at sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list"
>>>>> <active at sfgreens.org> <mailto:active at sfgreens.org>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:03 AM
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I'm interested in taking part of this discussion. Let me know if
>>>>> something
>>>>> is set up for further discussion/action.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  peace
>>>>>  susan
>>>>>   On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Joe Lynn wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case
>>>>>> before the
>>>>>> Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. ?I¹ve always seen the case as the
>>>>>> flip side
>>>>>> of the Dred Scott decision. ?In the Southern Pacific case the rights
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> person were given to propert. ?In the Dred Scott case the rights of a
>>>>>> person were denied to a person because he was property. ?That said,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Southern Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Roberts/Alito Suspreme Court.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>> ?It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage
>>>>>> ballot-measure campaigns. ?Public finance is an extension of Benjamin
>>>>>> Franklin¹s principles of a public library. ?In both cases, the public
>>>>>> treasury may be used for ideas not embraced by the majority under the
>>>>>> principle that dissemination of ideas to a free-thinking people is
>>>>>> critical
>>>>>> to democracy. ?There are a lot of kinks to work out for such a
>>>>>> program, but
>>>>>> a reactionary Court has ruled that regulation of money entails
>>>>>> regulation
>>>>>> of speech. ?This raises a profound obstacle to reform efforts. ?In
>>>>>> addition, administration of regulatory schemes presumes
>>>>>> administrators
>>>>>> committed to the political philosophy that gives rise to the
>>>>>> regulation.
>>>>>> ?As we have seen in San Francisco, that presents an even more
>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>> practical problem for reformers. ?Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the
>>>>>> Campaign Fines Officer at the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed
>>>>>> piece in
>>>>>> Tuesday¹s Chronicle relating Ethics decision to give major donors
>>>>>> ($10,000
>>>>>> or more) a free ride on disclosures.
>>>>>> ?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D
>>>>>> TL
>>>>>> &hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000
>>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D
>>>>>> TL
>>>>>> &amp;hw=luby&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> launch a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter
>>>>>>> amendment striking down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco
>>>>>>> County.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> on independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> come up with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> make it happen.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joe Lynn wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E
>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> spending on a ballot measure initiative. ?Particularly when the
>>>>>>>> Supreme
>>>>>>>> Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:brookse32 at aim.com> ?wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have
>>>>>>>>> already won.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been
>>>>>>>>> spent on a
>>>>>>>>> San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7
>>>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>>>> ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast
>>>>>>>>> side in
>>>>>>>>> the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to
>>>>>>>>> buy this
>>>>>>>>> election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good
>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>> that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent
>>>>>>>>> expenditure
>>>>>>>>> campaign finance reform measure in the next year.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of
>>>>>>>>> progressives and
>>>>>>>>> Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> PG&E's days are numbered.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So we have already won ;)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy
>>>>>>>>> project (the
>>>>>>>>> first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward
>>>>>>>>> regardless of
>>>>>>>>> Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has
>>>>>>>>> helped
>>>>>>>>> strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack
>>>>>>>>> Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those
>>>>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>>>>> will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is
>>>>>>>>> much less
>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the
>>>>>>>>> angry core
>>>>>>>>> of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now
>>>>>>>>> primed and
>>>>>>>>> ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with
>>>>>>>>> Community Choice.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice
>>>>>>>>> fight; which
>>>>>>>>> will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040
>>>>>>>>> regardless of
>>>>>>>>> last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> help, go to:
>>>>>>>>>  http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>  http://communitychoiceenergy.org/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is
>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get
>>>>>>>>> customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E
>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>> the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we
>>>>>>>>> stay on
>>>>>>>>> it with a sharp focus.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and
>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the
>>>>>>>>> SF
>>>>>>>>> Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community
>>>>>>>>> Choice) and
>>>>>>>>> the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support
>>>>>>>>> closing
>>>>>>>>> down the city's remaining polluting power plants.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in
>>>>>>>>> PG&E's
>>>>>>>>> face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E
>>>>>>>>> the hell
>>>>>>>>> out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> peace
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Eric Brooks
>>>>>>>>> ????
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>  San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>>>>  To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>>>>  https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

More information about the Sustainability mailing list