reverence for the constitution

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

I would second this as a proposal for a continuing thread on this list;
especially since Doug broached the issue of Corporate Governance in Chapter
6.  There have been several excellent left critiques of property rights in
the past few years; Christman's, Gintis and Bowles latest effort, Duncan
Kennedy's, as well as the genuinely grassroots efforts of Richard Grossman.
As algorithms and genomes (as well as ecosystem devastation and remediation)
are going to be with us for a while, it would be useful to track how well
the left positions itself on these issues.

Since the US constitution seems to be as obsolete in helping citizens gain
genuine representation as The Critique of Pure Reason is in helping us
understand cognition, we do seem to have our work cut out for us....

Ian Murray

  -----Original Message-----

  From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Tom Lehman

  Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 7:31 PM

  To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com

  Subject: Re: reverence for the constitution

  Charles, I think Mike and Doug are taking the view first put forward by
Charles and Mary Beard in their 1913 book An Economic Interpretation of the
Constitution.  This book which is now a widely accepted classic more or less
said that the Constitution had been shaped by conservative economic
interests.  The Beards interpretation could also be said to say that the
people who shaped the document were acting in their own economic interests
or in the interest of people with similar economic interests as their own.
i.e. their class interest.

  I'd love to get a discussion going on the whole corporate chartering
process.  The role of state legislatures and state attorney generals in this
process.

  Your email pal,

  Tom L.

  Charles Brown wrote:

    Yes, the Constitution might be best thought of as a site of continuing
struggle ( even though our side seems to be on the disabled list in the
current part of the "season"). "The People" win some, even the first few
lines, but, the Big Cigars are always taking things back.

    By framing our revolutionary proposals in Constitutional terms, we
minimize the outlawing of our actions. By the Amendment Provision,
theoretically, very radical changes in the Constitution itself are
CONSTITUTIONAL or eminently legal. Nathan was correct in arguing that a mass
movement must underlie the changes.

    Charles Brown

    >>> Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> 05/22/99 04:19PM >>>

    Margaret called the constitution egalitarian.  What?  A black is a
fraction of a

    man, and like women denied the vote.

    The founding fathers were interested in the preservation of property.
They were

    worried that the electorate could get too uppity under the articles of

    confederation.  They wanted more trade and more financial control.

    The document was prepared under fraudulent conditions (supposedly a
minor

    alteration of some technical matters in the Articles of Confederation),
debated

    under the greatest secrecy, and then ratified under undemocratic and
probably

    fraudulent conditions.

    The Constitution offers a few protections, but most of them have been

    grotesquely distorted (e.g. freedom of speech for corporations).  We
should hold

    fast to these protections since we have so few, but reverence ....?

    --

    Michael Perelman

    Economics Department

    California State University

    Chico, CA 95929

    Tel. 530-898-5321

    E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/19990523/85a68cdb/attachment.htm>