What Words Are (And Aren't) In The US Constitution

[The gist of this post is to point out the many words that are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.  Since the so called 'Originalists' who have gained a majority of the Supreme Court want to base their decisions strictly on the words found in the Constitution, then it would seem they would have to overturn many past decisions - including Citizens United.]

 A few weeks ago I announced a contest about how often different words showed up in the Constitution.  I guess I was asking a lot more of readers than they were willing to do.  I only got one response - which was a comment suggesting I should have checked out the word 'gun.'  (Gun is not mentioned, 'arms' is mentioned once.) I figured enough people had gone over that already and the part that includes 'a well regulated militia.'  

My point here was to support the belief that the so called 'Originalist' faction is a sham created to give radical conservative Supreme Court Justices their own way to spin things.  As you go through the list below, think about how many words NOT mentioned in the constitution seem to have Supreme Court decisions that ignore the fact they aren't mentioned.  

[Originalists basically argue they want to interpret the Constitution by using the words the Founding Fathers wrote.  I've covered it in several earlier posts:

Thursday, February 25, 2016   I Think Scalia's Originalism Is Like Intelligent Design Of Constitutional Theories

Monday, March 20, 2017    As Neil Gorsuch Takes Center Stage, What Exactly Is Originalism About?

Monday, October 12, 2020     Revisiting Originalism ]

I took an online copy of the Constitution and the searched it for each of the terms.  Here's my list of words and how often they show up:

	In Constittuion?		How often?	Contest Notes
	YES	NO
MAN		√	0	Manner = 11
WOMAN		√	0
CORPORATION		√	0
INDUSTRY		√	0
PERSON(S)	√		49
CITIZEN	√		22
LIFE	√		4
LIBERTY	√		3
ECONOMY		√	0
CAPITAL	√		1	“Capital or otherwise infamous crime”
CAPITALISM	√		0
MARKET	√		0
MARRIAGE	√		0
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE		√	1	Along with invasion
BUSINESS		√	1	“Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business”
TAX	√		10	Tax or taxes
VOTE	√		36
COMMERCE	√		2	“Regulation of Commerce”
BANKRUPTCY	√		1
SECURITIES	√		1
SEX	√		1
RELIGION	√		1
CHRISTIAN		√	0
WELFARE	√		2	“General welfare”
THE PEOPLE	√		9
GOD		√	0

Let me mention the context notes first.

1.  Man - I also checked 'men' and 'women'.  'Manner' was the closest thing to 'man' that showed up. Basically the constitution never mentions 'man' or 'woman.'  It talks about 'persons' and 'citizens.' Even the 18th Amendment (women's suffrage) doesn't mention women directly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

No where could I find person to refer to anything other than an individual human being.  Not to corporations (which are never mentioned.) 

2.  Capital - This word is mentioned in the context of 'capital punishment.' Neither capital (in the sense of money) nor capitalism are mentioned in the Constitution. 

3.  Domestic Violence - is mentioned once.  Not to mean violence within a household, but rather more like the January 6 insurrection.  It's mentioned along with 'invasion.'

4.  Business - The only mention is in regards to  needing a quorum for Congress to conduct business.  It is not used to refer to business enterprises, just as the words 'corporation,' 'industry,' 'economy,' or 'market' are used.  

5.  Tax - is mentioned 10 times

6.  Commerce is mentioned twice - both times in the phrase 'regulation of commerce.'

7.  Welfare is mentioned twice.  First in the Preamble that lists 'promote the general Welfare' as one of the goals of establishing the Constitution.  Second, 'general Welfare' is one of the reasons for levying taxes.  

8.  

Considering all of the Supreme Court decisions that give corporations rights that are reserved for persons -most egregiously in Citizens United - it's hard to imagine how this is done by so called 'Originalists.'   I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the evolution of business law, but it seems to me attorneys wanting to overturn Citizens United might take an Originalist approach and point out that corporations are not even mentioned in the US Constitution.  Nor are businesses or enterprises.  

But 'regulation of commerce' is listed.  

Promoting the general Welfare is listed.  That would seem to be a strong bases for including things like universal health care and many other programs that improve people's lives.  

I realize the law is complicated. My suggestion that since corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution and 'person' only refers to actual human beings, Citizens United should be overturned, probably faces many obstacles I've overlooked.   But the lack of these terms in the Constitution seems to me to be one more way to show the silliness of the Originalist approach.  

"When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings

I didn't see all of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  But of what I saw, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had the most insightful things to say.  He stepped back and put this particular nomination into both the context of recent events and also much longer term events.  As he says, he's looking beyond the stage of the puppet theater of the hearing to see who's pulling the strings and pushing the sticks that move the puppets.  

Most important is his following the money that:

• Has spent 40 years educating law students in a very conservative way of interpreting the law.
• Funded shadow organizations that make multiple  Friend of the Court filings on the court cases they have themselves created
• Also funded Federalist Society that gives Trump his Supreme Court nominee names

He looks at where the money comes from and traces most of it back to the same few people.

He then says, while the media have focused on abortion and LGBTQ rights (which are important), the real story deals with 80 cases that were decided by 5-4 rulings along partisan lines.  These cases had four themes important to large corporations:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

Whitehouse makes a great presentation providing the evidence clearly.  This is critical to getting a good sense what's happening and why Democrats are upset with this nomination.  The Republicans have been packing the courts for years and years - through 

• creating a legal theory, Originalism, that I consider the Intelligent Design of Constitutional Law, and 
• through blocking Democratic nominees and holding off Merrick Garland, so they could fill those seats

I don't put up that many third party videos here.  Only ones I think are really worth your time.  So please figure out a good time when you can listen and then do so.

While we're on this topic, let me also point out that the words "extreme liberal" is not the opposite of "extreme conservative."  

"Extreme liberals" on the court have worked hard for individual rights - desegregating schools, supporting voting rights, giving women equal rights to men, recognizing the rights of LGBTQ folks.

"Extreme conservatives" have fought all those individual rights in favor of the rights of corporations, going so far to apply the individual rights in the Bill of Rights to corporations.  

The liberals are much more in synch with the beliefs of most US citizens.  The conservatives push legal theories that go against what most citizens hold, but they do a good job of marketing their contrary positions, by framing abortion as murder, and just outright lying.  

The two articles below offer more on this:

Mother Jones article on Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse comments at Barret hearing: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/watch-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-school-amy-coney-barrett-on-dark-money/

Here's a piece written by Sheldon Whitehouse spelling out the dark money interests in shaping he Supreme Court and how they do it.  

Big Bright Vernal Equinox Moon Greets Us After Move To Amend Panel

After attending a  panel discussion on "The 28th Amendment" we walked out to see this giant moon pushing up over the mountains and not quite out of the clouds.

Here it's a little higher and we're out of downtown.

I'm still fighting my camera when the auto settings can't figure out what to do.  The manual settings just aren't intuitive and I use them so rarely.  The moon wasn't - as I remember it - so yellow.  

The panel was interesting and very civil.  The basic concern is with the impact of Citizens United and the problems of unlimited money from corporations and other non-human entities on elections in the United States.  The key objection I heard was that by limiting constitutional rights to human beings (Citizens United ruling was based on their First Amendment Right to free speech) organizations will be stripped of important rights, such as due process.  In response, Dr. Sharman Haley (standing at the mic in the picture) argued that such organizations are created and sanctioned by states and it is there, not in the constitution, that their rights should be established.  At least that's what I understood.  

To learn more, check out  Move To Amend.  

Another idea that was raised to make elections less contentious was ranked voting.  Dr. Haley argued that first, this would eliminate the need for primaries.  And second,  if candidates want to win, they have to be listed second on a lot of ballots.  Thus taking an extreme stand will likely lose them the election.   There's more on ranked choice voting here.

Fight Citizens United - Call Your Assembly Members to Support Constitutional Amendment [UPDATE: It Passed]

There's a resolution before the Anchorage Assembly tonight.  It would support a Constitutional amendment to counter Citizens United, the US Supreme Court decision which allowed for unlimited money in US elections from corporations.

There are conflicting views on the effectiveness (and unintended consequences) of this proposed Amendment, but it seems to be the leading contender to push back the effects of Citizens United.

Here's the FAQ page of the website of Move To Amend, the organization sponsoring this around the country.

The ACLU supported Citizens United in the Supreme Court.  Here's what they say about it on their website.  

HERE'S TONIGHT'S RESOLUTION:    (I put the actual Amendment in red)

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY
2. 2  SUPPORTING AND CALLING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
3. 3  OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT RESULTED FROM
4. 4  COURT DECISIONS SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S
5. 5  DECISION IN CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

6 7

8. 8  WHEREAS the heart of democracy is the right of human beings to govern
9. 9  themselves, and the United States is the first and foremost democracy since the days of
10. 10  ancient Greece; and

11

12. 12  WHEREAS the founding documents of the United States, the Declaration of
13. 13  Independence and the Constitution, recognize that human beings have certain inalienable
14. 14  rights; and

15

16. 16  WHEREAS the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution
17. 17  do not mention or grant any rights to corporations or to any artificial entities other than the
18. 18  United States of America and its constituent States; and

19

20. 20  WHEREAS corporations and other artificial entities are not and never have been
21. 21  human beings, and are only entitled to the legal powers and protections that the People
22. 22  grant to them; and

23

24. 24  WHEREAS recent judicial decisions, including the United States Supreme Court
25. 25  decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876, 558 U.S. 310
26. 26  (2010), have held that corporations and other artificial entities are “persons” under the
27. 27  United States Constitution with a constitutional right to spend as much money as they wish
28. 28  on political speech, thereby greatly expanding the power of corporations and other
29. 29  artificial entities to influence elections and otherwise undermine the power of the People to
30. 30  govern themselves; and

31

32. 32  WHEREAS when freedom of speech is equated with freedom to spend money, the
33. 33  free speech of 99 percent of the People is overwhelmed by the messages of the few who
34. 34  are able to spend millions of dollars to influence the political process; and

35

36. 36  WHEREAS respected national political polls show that large majorities of the
37. 37  People from all parts of the political spectrum believe that corporations and other artificial
38. 38  entities have too much power in our political system; and

39

40. 40  WHEREAS we the People are supreme, and have the power to overrule the
41. 41  Supreme Court through a constitutional amendment; and

42

AR supporting Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Page 2 of 2 to address effects of the Citizens United decision

WHEREAS over 800 municipalities and local governments, and 19 state governments, have already passed resolutions calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution to address the types of issues identified above;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anchorage Assembly supports, and calls for, an amendment to the United States Constitution, establishing that:

Section 1. The United States Constitution does not create or grant or protect any constitutional rights for corporations or other artificial entities; and
Section 2. That money is not speech, and that the government has the right to enact statutes and regulations governing the expenditure of money to influence elections and political decision making, to the end that all voices and opinions of the People can be expressed and heard.

The Municipal Clerk is directed to deliver copies of this resolution to the Anchorage delegation to the Alaska Legislature and to Alaska’s delegation to the United States Congress.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Anchorage Assembly this ____ day of ______________, 20____.


This is the most organized effort to blunt the effects of the Citizens United decision.  While it won't solve the campaign finance problems completely, and it raises some free speech questions, I think it forces the debate to a higher profile.  That's worth supporting this.  


Here's a list of Assembly members' email addresses.

If you don't know who your Assembly members are (most people have two), here's a map of the districts.  For more precise maps you can click on each district:  ( District 1) ( District 2) ( District 3) ( District 4) ( District 5) ( District 6)

Even if you don't want to call or attend the meeting tonight, you should at least know who your Assembly members are.  

[UPDATE Dec 22, 2018:  I'm told it passed with little or no comment.]

When Will Corporations Get The Right To Vote?

I was talking to a friend who's active in the Move to Amend group.  They're working on getting support from the Anchorage Assembly and others to support a Constitutional Amendment already in Congress that would define the word 'people' in the Constitution as referring to individual humans, NOT corporations.  Here's the whole amendment:

House Joint Resolution 48 introduced January 30, 2017
Click here for most up to date list of co-sponsors

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

The key arguments I've heard against this motion is that there are some situations where corporations should have rights that the constitution protects - like free speech.  The response I hear from supporters of the amendments that individual states that set up the laws for corporations can legislate those rights (like lobbying Congress, etc.).

The genesis of the amendment was the Supreme Court case Citizens United which upturned campaign finance laws and allowed corporations and others to contribute huge sums of money.

But you're better off checking their arguments on their website.   There are other attempts to counter act Citizens United.  

Is Corporate Voting Next?

So as I was thinking about this, I thought well, perhaps the corporations, since they are now considered persons, will be asking for the right to vote.  They already have lots of shell corporations for this and that.  Just think how many they could create if there were a tight election.  Would the corporation have to be 18 years old or older?  

Alaska Election Gets Yet Stranger As Oil Consultant Brad Keithley Pledges $200K To Change Election

Brad Keithley is apparently taking advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and will, according to APRN, spend $200,000 of his own money in order to pursue his concern that the state is spending too much money.

From his blog at Alaskans For Sustainable Budgets:

Today I am taking the next step in the effort by announcing the legislative races in which I intend to participate.  They are House Districts 15, 19, 21 and 25.  I also am going closely to watch Senate Districts K and N, and, after studying the dynamics at play, House District 9 over the next two to three weeks with the possibility of participating in them as well.  A brief description of the reasoning follows:  [You can read the rest here] [And you can check on the Alaska election districts here.]

He identifies spenders and savers.  He's targeted two incumbent Republicans and will support their Democratic opponents;  one Democratic incumbent and will support her Libertarian opponent; and another Republican over a Democrat in a seat with no incumbent.

His basic criterion is whether the candidate will vote for a sustainable budget.

There are a couple more races he's considering campaigning in.

 Is this a good thing?  If you are a challenger struggling to raise money to unseat an incumbent, this probably looks good.  Keithley isn't going to give money directly to candidates, because there are limits to how much you can give as an individual.  Instead he will essentially have a PAC that will independently support candidates. 

To what extent will this affect what the chosen candidates say and do?  The blog acknowledges that some of his choices are just based on questionnaires returned to him by candidates and that they might not follow through.  But he's not worried,

 "If Moore fails to live up to his words I will work to defeat him also in two years"

 For $200,000 you can be an Alaskan Koch it seems. Keithley isn't taking on the governor's race, but given Bill Walker's rhetoric on the budget deficits at the announcement of the Walker/Mallot ticket, it would seem Keithley would be supporting him, especially since the incumbent Sean Parnell was one of the architects of the current deficit budget that Keithley opposes. 

One of the incumbents he opposed came out fighting,  accusing Keithley of being a bully who takes advantage of women.  

This is not politics as usual.  It will be interesting.  November 4 is only seven weeks away.