Citizens United and Hobby Lobby (Con Law - Nov 2013)

(Today I wanted to write about Hobby Lobby, see next posts, but realized that I should first post what I have been saying about Citizens United ever since that case was decided.  I had written briefly at the time of the oral argument, but not since.)

Unlike natural persons (that is, human beings), corporate persons can neither vote in elections nor go to jail.  Corporate persons also lack vocal chords and body parts that can hold pens, tap keyboards or touch touchscreens.  But because 'money talks,' corporations can speak.  Moneytalk has been granted First Amendment protection for a long time.  What was new about Citizens United?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court granted corporate persons the right to speak
   - about elections,
   - where the penalty for violating the law is going to jail.
Weird, eh?

Citizens United also ensured that the human persons hiding behind that corporate veil of a corporate person have the right to speak anonymously.  That is a right not actually conferred by the First Amendment.  It seems doubtful that the Founders intended it.  After all, the classic example of free speech is Hyde Park Corner.  As far as I know, the right to stand on a soapbox never included the right to put a bag over your head and disguise your voice.  In the late18th century, what were the chances that nobody would recognize you when you spoke out in the town square -- and that you'd actually want to remain anonymous?  Not so good, I would guess, and becoming worse with each successive rant.

Also:  anonymous speakers who could maintain that anonymity would not need the First Amendment to keep the government from throwing them in jail or beheading them as long as they could run fast.

***

If we are going to talk about the First Amendment, we should look at the words. FYI regarding Hobby Lobby: The phrase 'freedom of religion' does not appear.

1.  Block Format:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2.  Reformatted for ease of reading, to show what ideas are parallel and to see the overall structure of the sentence.  There are three verbs (-ing words). The first two concern religion:  respecting and prohibiting.  The third -- abridging -- concerns two freedoms -- speech and press -- and two rights -- to assemble and to petition.

Congress shall make no law
     - respecting an establishment of religion,
or
     - prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or
     - abridging
        -- the freedom
             --- of speech,
             or
             --- of the press;
        or
        -- the right of the people
             --- peaceably to assemble,
             and
             --- to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

typos corr 1/10/14