The Constitution of the United States of American offers a wide range of guarantees and rights to the people of the nation. The motive behind the Bill of Rights is to protect the American people from anarchical and tyrannical regimes. The reason for the US Supreme Court’s blunder in the verdict supporting corporate funding for election campaigns is due to comprehension (Cornell University Law School, 2011). They did not interpret the First Amendment of the US Constitution in the proper context. The enactment of laws and the subsequent consequences should be in line with the context of why there was a requirement for such a law. The inability to conceive the obvious is an indication of misconception. This was what transpired for five of the nine US Supreme Court Judges.
The US Constitution is in place for the sake of protecting the people. In the actual political setting on 17 September 1787 should come up for consideration before applying its virtues to a case. The newly independent American nation was gearing up for governance. In the process, the founding fathers of the nation wanted to ensure the people never have the plight of being subject to a tyrannical monarch. All the rights and guarantees therefore only reflect their intention towards this goal. To interpret these rights, it is important to come up with a relevant model. This model has to identify with all the components placed in 1787 and applicable substitutions in society today.
The only tyrannical monarch who was a threat to the American Nation in 1787 was King George of England. The intention of the monarch was to collect exorbitant taxes from the American colony to fund the economy of England. He did not mind if the American colonialists faced arrest, humiliation, or even death for the sake of these taxes. The King did not care about how many families he displaced or destroyed. The parallel to this tyrannical King in modern times is surprisingly not the Government. The only institution in the United States which tramples the rights of law-abiding citizens with unfair compensation for employment, uninformed increase of price in services, outsourcing jobs out of US soil, and engages in unfair practices that adversely affect the society are Corporates. The only objective for any Corporate House is profit.
The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution exists to protect innocent civilians from the Corporates. However, the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to consider these Corporates as actual citizens is both demeaning and unconstitutional. The verdict is a mockery of the actual intention of the founding fathers. It is a travesty of justice and cannot find validation. The evidence is clearly visible in the form of a twenty-first century depiction of King George. Corporations destroy the opportunity for millions of American citizens to gain fair wages, quality life, job opportunities, healthcare, public safety, and freedom of speech. The Corporations want to fund elections to choose lawmakers who will favor them. The Supreme Court Judges had an obligation to interpret the word of the law in the correct context and use it to protect the rights of US citizens. How is this verdict protecting the interests of common citizens? Is that not why the Courts exist? To protect the innocent? This verdict only helps large Corporations increase their holdings. Hence, the verdict should not remain vindicated.
References
Cornell University Law School Staff (2011). CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N (No. 08-205). Retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
