Corporate Interests & Democracy's Death Knell

Corporations have been slyly working against the will of the people for decades with campaign finance, lobbying, and the like.But it seems that lately they are taking more direct approaches to squashing the opposition that is the poor masses they fuck overby seeking to legally ban democracy itself. Two cases in point: the first involves Texas' ban on banning fracking, the second the WTO's recent ruling against USDA meat labeling standards.Just last week, Texas governor Greg Abbot passed through a law that prohibits localities from banning hydraulic fracturing:

quote:

---

"Texas Outlaws Fracking Bans" from WSJ, May 19, 2015 (emphasis added):

​

This is all part of a broader legislative and judicial effort, backed by the oil industry, to limit local [democratically elected] governments' ability to regulate drilling. Backers say that both the Oklahoma and Texas bills were proposed in response to a voter-approved ban on fracking in Denton, Texas, in November.

​

One of the authors of the Texas bill said his motivation was to protect an economically important industry.

---

It appears that in Texas, and perhaps soon several other states, democracy is banned when it conflicts with corporate interests.In other news, the USDAan arm of the democratically elected government of the U.S. tasked with protecting the interests of both U.S. food consumers and producershas lost an appeal to the World Trade Organization regarding its rules on meat labeling:

quote:

---

"WTO Rules Against COOL" from Agriculture.com:

​

The appellate body of the World Trade Organization announced Monday that it has ruled against a U.S. appeal of an earlier decision that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law treats Canadian beef and pork and Mexican beef unfairly.

---

Some legislators now want to adjust the rules to comply with the WTO decision instead of the decisions of the U.S. democracy.And who is giddy with excitement over all this? Why, it's the company store of course:

quote:

---

"WTO Rules Against U.S. Meat Labels" from WSJ, May 19, 2015:

​

The WTO's decision was hailed by U.S. meatpackers, which have been largely responsible for complying with the labeling rules and tracking imported animals.

​

The requirements are "costly and onerous," said Barry Carpenter, president of the North American Meat Institute, the main trade group for meat and poultry processors.
...

​

"This is just the latest example of how multinational companies use the global trade system to attack basic protections for U.S. consumers," ...

---

I think it can be argued, convincingly, that both of these steps, and many others lately taken to advance corporate interests, are direct violations of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and in opposition to our country's founding principles respecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.What do you think? If these issues ever came before SCoTUS, would they decide that they violate basic principles of democracy and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to self government?

I'm aware of the fine line.

With two caveats: The Texas decision specifically denies people the right to self-governance in decisions relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the decision was specifically backed by the oil industry.Local government has always been the holdout for real democracy, but now it denying democracy. The influence of industry had been restricted to pushing through legislation favoring it through tax benefits, crappy minimum wages, etc. Now, the industries are pushing through laws that specifically block democratic processes. No; the issue here is that multinational industries have used their influence in the WTO to tell the U.S. that it is forbidden from taking democratically-approved actions that conflict with industry interests. If 'U.S. privilege' means the right to determine matters within U.S. borders, then I suppose you are right.Your attempt to draw a parallel between these things is just stupid.

Of course not. And the fact that the WTO seeks to interfere with the self-governance of the U.S. people should be all the reason the Supreme Court needs to deem unconstitutional the United States' participation, recognition, and respect for WTO rulings that conflict with decisions made by U.S. government organizations.And that some legislators now want to revise COOL to comply with the WTO ruling is nothing other than a failure of those legislators to do their job on the most basic level.However, since it's caused so much controversy I'm comfortable setting aside the WTO/USDA issue and focusing on state governments banning local democracy.Do you have thoughts on that?

Sounds like crap.

I don't know who you're replying to, but it sure as hell isn't me.

I realize there is nothing 'illegal' about what has happened. No thanks.But I am a little shocked that no one else finds this disturbing...You can talk about laws and technicalities all you want.But laws and technicalities have a long history of denying people their fundamental rights.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

And my point in all this was not only to discuss an instance of laws and technicalities violating the rights of the peoplethat this is at least possible should surprise no onebut also to question whether that makes these particular laws and technicalities unconstitutional, whether there is potential appeal to the highest law of the land to annul some of this nonsense.A relevant example:It is not at all uncommon for people of similar ethnicities/race to live in proximity to one another in, for example, cities. Their children then go to the same school. Based on the way most schools are fundedwith local property tax revenuesthe affluency of the immediate community can have a significant impact on the quality of education a school can offer its students and, consequently, those students' academic performance.When these factors combine to create schools populated by mostly minority students with low measures of academic achievement, state education authorities often get involved to ensure the district is not acting out any sort of segregation with its student body and suggest ways for the school districts in question to rectify what appears to be segregation.And so many schools now offer open enrollment or similar options. There was absolutely nothing illegal or technically wrong about the old practices, but measures such as open enrollment help to ensure that the technicalities of the law are not abused, whether intentionally or not, to deny rights.That something is technically legal doesn't mean it is okay; it also doesn't even mean it will be permitted if the practice effectively infringes on certain rights.If the technicalities in question are being used to deny people their rights, then it is entirely reasonable to question whether those technicalities deserve revision. It is also not enough to simply say "Texas is self-governed" when the question presented is whether or not industry is using its influence and control to quell self-governance in the state of Texas.Just because some schools aren't technically segregating doesn't mean they aren't effectively doing so. And just because Texas (or anywhere) is technically a democratic system doesn't mean it effectively is.

It wasn't the first thing I said.I have admitted that the WTO/USDA example is not as clear-cut as it could be, and since I am not interested in spending the time necessary to defend its inclusion in this discussion, I'm fine just tossing it aside.If you want to take the win, it's all yours.

That relates to Texas' ban on banning fracking, not the WTO/USDA issue.

What else do you call it when people's right to self-governance is limited by how well their decisions conform to the desires of industry?Or is democracy still alive and well so long as the city council can decide what day the hog judging will be?

In other words, democracy by definition and definition only. That seems to be the standard of the times. But it need not be, and I am far from the first person to question whether the states' unhindered interference in local matters flies against basic principles of democracy and self-governance.

I wasn't aware that the U.S. Constitution was a dictionary.

It's the definition of U.S. government.

It is the definition of a government. How democratic that government is depends on the person making the judgement.Democracy can take many forms; where in that mix the U.S. falls in practice varies over time and under different interpretations (those by judges, for example).