Seasoned members of the U.S. Senate may be forgiven if they
think U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, elected to the Senate only five months ago, is
a bit of an upstart. It is an unwritten rule in that august body that newly
arrived Senators should be seen but not heard until they’ve paid their dues for
a year.
In the past two years, Connecticut lost two Senators of
longstanding, Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, who were replaced by Democrats Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of whom in the last six months have been
vigorously pressuring their brethren to vote into law a much watered down
version of Connecticut’s recently adopted gun law.
These efforts, so far, have been unavailing. Two months have passed
since Speaker of the U.S. Senate Harry Reid announced that he declined to bring
up for a vote in the Democratic controlled Senate a bill that would require
background checks for gun purchasers.
In response to the horrific mass murder of children and
staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut’s General Assembly quickly
passed a gun bill widely regarded as the most restrictive in the nation, possibly
outflanking Chicago, the murder capital of the Republic.
There is some reason to believe that the final gun bill in
Connecticut was speedily passed -- far in advance of the completion of a
criminal report on the Sandy Hook mass murder and without benefit of a final
public hearing on the measure – so that the Connecticut legislation might be
showcased in Washington D.C. prior to a pending vote on a national gun bill.
If so, the effort failed. Mr. Reid, convinced he could not
marshal sufficient votes in the Senate to pass a bill infinitely less
restrictive than the Connecticut legislation, recently declined to bring the
bill before the Senate for a vote.
Governor Dannel Malloy
-- who said concerning his state’s gun manufacturers as Connecticut’s gun
restriction bill was being forced through the General Assembly’s sausage making
machine, "What this is about is
the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as
possible, even if they're deranged, even if they're mentally ill, even if they
have a criminal record. They don't care” – was of course disappointed
that a much weaker national gun restriction bill had failed to pass muster in
the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate. And Connecticut’s two cloutless U.S.Senators
were sorely frustrated. Both Mr. Blumenthal, now the state’s senior senator,
and Mr. Murphy publically lashed out at the National Rifle Association (NRA) and
their weak-kneed comrades in the Senate whom they understood to be hanging
limply from puppet strings attaching them to NRA campaign contributions.
Either of Connecticut’s now departed U.S. Senators might
have told the two novice senators that such public intimations are no way to
win friends and influence comrades in what some have called the world’s
greatest deliberative body. Are Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy prepared to argue
that Harry Reid, the Democratic Speaker of the Senate, is a mindless puppet of
the NRA?
Well, are they?
Mr. Murphy in particular moves from rashness to rashness the
way a flitting pollen collecting bee moves briskly from flower to flower. Along
with U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Mr. Murphy – having danced a public jig over the
grave of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment – has now proposed to add to
the Constitution an amendment
that would, according to some Constitutional scholars,
“authorize Congress, states, and local governments to, for instance, restrict
what most newspapers publish, restrict what most advocacy groups, such as the
ACLU, the Sierra Club, and the NRA say, restrict what is said and done by most
churches, and seize the property of corporations without just compensation.”
Here is Mr. Murphy’s proposed amendment:
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable
The Murphy amendment is a thoughtless and juvenile reaction
to a Supreme Court holding that the rights and immunities of the U.S.
Constitution should continue to apply to corporate entities. Mr. Murphy’s own
state, one of the 13 original colonies, was founded as a royal chartered
corporation. Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA,
noted that “corporate entities,” include most media companies, nonprofit
groups, and religious organizations. “Under the proposed amendment, all these
groups—as well as ordinary businesses—would lose all their constitutional
rights.”
Connecticut’s junior
U.S. Senator appears to be determinedly working his way through the Bill of Rights in an
attempt to purge it of its ancient excrescences. One can almost hear him
ticking off the list: Second Amendment, done; First Amendment, done. For
progressive utopianists unwilling to acknowledge a politics of limits, not even
the rational limits imposed by constitutions, the sky is always the limit.
Comments
--------------------
If anyone had any before, there's absolutely no doubt now in anyone's mind that Dr. Murphy graduated from a college and subsequently became a J.D. Now that he's reached a pinnacle of power in D.C. he can act on his expensively acquired knowledge that Corporations are Bad. Not only can he occupy Wall Street, but he can effectuate legislation against that one per cent bunch.
What's with the "ordain and establish" lingo? Smacks of the kind of religious orientation and emphasis the existing 1st amendment discourages. Maybe Lefty Gnosis inadvertent showing of leg. (?)
The logic of the thing is, as best I can determine: Corporations are artificial things. Rights as against the government(s) should only inhere in natural human beings. Therefor, the Constitution must be clarified to distinguish between the voluminous rights of individuals and the non-existent ones of artificial entities.
The Murphy proposal would make clear that any rights of persons do not extend to artificil entities. So, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons" would not protect corporations. But, further, in areas where presently the government is restricted in a general way, not merely with respect to natural people, the new Dr.Murphy Constitution would expand governmental power. For example, where the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Murph would add, in effect, "of the people, etc." These folks belly ache about the Citizens United opinion as if the Constitution's Bill of Rights were presently written to protect only individuals. It is not.
Nor really can the Dr. Murphy Constitution be. Or, rather, it can be written but will it be successfully ordained? The new Constitution hastens to add that natural people will be protected in , among "other rights," their "freedom of association." But, wait... aren't corporations and partnerships examples of association par excellence? Individuals will be able to associate, but only with respect to purposes and capacities approved by our Federal and State wise men.
An interesting feature of the Updated Constitution is its provision to the States of the power to regulate corporations as they may "deem reasonable." Of course there was a time in this country when the States didn't have to ask the Feds for permission. Would Dr. Murphy go for a return to the Court imposed application of the Bill of Rights to the States through what our Doctors refer to as "incorporation?"
We have to be grateful that Dr. Murphy is not better educated than he is. What kind of goofy schemes would he concoct if he'd also gotten a Masters Degree from the Kennedy School or a Jounalism Degree from Columbia?
----------------------
I recently wrote to both Connecticut Senators on the immigration matter. It impresses me that Murphy bothered to respond, even if with an off-the-shelf epistle composed when the Gang of 8 proposal was a "good start." And, although he professes vague support for the "reform," does manage to say a couple of things that are true. (See above.)
Speaking of natural persons in our U.S. Constitution, I'd very much appreciate it if the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision were to be clarified. All that's needed to correct the present willing if silent misunderstanding by the conventional powers that be is a statute explaining what is meant by "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...," in particular the "subject to the jurisdiction" bit. At present we act as if mere birth in the country is sufficient for citizenship. It's not reasonable nor in the country's interest to bestow citizenship to children of legal or especially of illegal aliens. Senator Murphy could win fame and honor if he were to push a simple statute to the effect that such babies, although born here, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.