Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:38 AM Jul 2014

The Zeroth Amendment: The Basis of All "Modern" Conservative Jurisprudence

On casual inspection, one might be tempted to think that the conservative Roberts court and its predecessor under William Rehnquist made a lot of thoroughly arbitrary, random, and contradictory decisions in service to conservative ideology. Sometimes they argued from federalism, sometimes from state's rights; sometimes defended individuals, sometimes the power of the State; and oftentimes their arguments in each where mutually exclusive to standards they later applied to find the opposite. But in every case where the Court reached 5-4 mutually exclusive decisions with its own earlier precedents, there was one constant that actually puts it all in perspective.

Think of it as the Zeroth Amendment to the US Constitution - an unwritten Amendment that preempts all others, and justifies discarding them completely when they become inconvenient to it: Thou shalt not inconvenience the rich, or through inaction allow them to be inconvenienced. When you take this concept into account, suddenly all of the chaotic lunacy of right-wing jurisprudence over the past several decades seems utterly self-consistent.

Take the most recent abomination, the 5-4 finding that Hobby Lobby as a Corporate Person has the Constitutional right to impose its religious beliefs on its employees and violate federal law by refusing to cover contraception. Let's dissect every aspect of the madness: First and foremost, obviously, is the concept of Corporate Persons itself. Corporate personhood is not a new legal Lie - it actually arose from the previous period in American history when the rich ruled with impunity, the late 19th century. But it had lapsed into irrelevancy for generations before being revived in the post-Reagan era as a justification for exempting corporations from the authority of Constitutional government while giving them its full protection.

Now, what is the primary mechanism through which the rich enact their will? The corporation. Ergo, any limit on the corporation is a limit on the privilege of the rich. Thus, via the Zeroth Amendment, we have seen a steady succession of lawless decisions declaring such lunatic doctrines as the idea that a business - basically a machine organized to achieve the one-dimensional objective of maximum financial profit - has Constitutional rights, among them the right to purchase political influence and sway the outcomes of elections purely by force of money. Since the rich are culturally accustomed to all things being for sale and getting their way entirely by buying it, imposing a democratic system on them - even the shallow patina of one - would be an inconvenience, and thus a violation of their Zeroth Amendment right to buy the election outcome of their desire.

The most recent case, while it superficially regards matters of religion, is actually just another case of the Court saying that the rich can do whatever they want with impunity. After all, the case isn't about a religious organization that doesn't want to cover contraception costs, but about a very wealthy for-profit corporation. So the real question was not one of religion, but of money: The owners of Hobby Lobby have more money than their employees, ergo they have greater rights under the Zeroth Amendment and its associated jurisprudence.

Even the 2nd Amendment, with all the seeming absolutism of its most fanatical adherents, is largely just an auxiliary to the Zeroth Amendment. Think about this: To whom does the NRA owe primary allegiance - gun owners, or gun manufacturers? Clearly the latter, since it overwhelmingly opposes measures that are opposed by manufacturers that would if anything benefit consumers of their products. It is 100% focused on maximizing the profits of the industry and literally nothing else. If you were to introduce legislation guaranteeing that every adult non-felon must be issued a gun at cost (i.e., no profit) by firearm manufacturers, the NRA would shriek it into oblivion, and the same gundamentalist madmen who would effectively have been calling for such a measure the day before would propose every conceivable conspiracy theory to denounce it.

Because, once again, the Zeroth Amendment is their guiding light, not the 2nd Amendment: The gun industry is obscenely rich, and besides that, is instrumental in the violent enforcement of the Zeroth Amendment rights of all rich people and their attendant Corporate Persons.

This also explains the absolute Republican obstruction of tax increases despite their own hollow rhetoric attacking budget deficits: They don't care about deficits - they just (a)refuse to raise taxes on the rich (the Zeroth Amendment forbids it), and (b)refuse to fund anything that benefits anyone other than the rich, because that dilutes their power (and thus, once again, the Zeroth Amendment forbids it). It is their one and only Law, the one and only right they recognize, and all others either do not exist as far as they are concerned or are mere rhetorical tools for enforcing the Zeroth Amendment.

I'm not saying this is a principle they consciously adhere to, any more than most Fascists consciously adhere to the principle that power is the only morality: It's simply a fact at the root of their thinking and behavior, demonstrated overwhelmingly and repeatedly. Thus we find that US conservatives, while not quite the nightmare that fascism represents, are at least a cousin to it: Where fascists find sole vindication in the act of eliminating opposition, this (equally totalitarian, but less dramatic) group of sociopaths find sufficient and exclusive vindication in economic leverage. So the US conservative's ideal world is not a battlefield, but a slave auction.

Let us not kid ourselves about where this is going either: The ultimate end of this process will be the granting of voting rights to corporations, which will then be extended to the point that elections are literally auctions rather than merely taking on the aspect thereof due to unhealthy influence. I am not exaggerating for effect: This will, I think, literally occur. And at that point the unwritten, unjust, and insane Zeroth Amendment that exists in conservatives' heads will be in direct existential conflict with the Constitution as written and understood by the American people and every legal scholar who is not a raving psychotic.

But given the meekness with which every step toward that abyss has been met by even the liberal activists of this country, one can't help but wonder if that final step off the edge will be regarded as anything special, or just met with the same cowardice and lethargy as the rest.

The alternative is, at least for now, to acknowledge among ourselves that the decisions the Roberts Court has reached in these Zeroth Amendment cases are lawless and without authority. That they are literally just raving ideologues, two of whom were illegitimately placed on the court by an unelected President, finding according to their fanatic religion of money in direct violation of the laws they were charged to interpret and reconcile.

In other words, we have to step back from the zombie attitude that the Constitution is whatever the Court says it is, and state unequivocally that when their decisions are so far removed from reason, jurisprudence, and the rights of the people that they are effectively creating their own secessionist state via their decisions, we have to take the position that we reject these decisions - not merely "opine" that they are wrong. Because they are not merely wrong, they are fundamentally outside the Court's purview. The Zeroth Amendment, folks, is the seed of right-wing totalitarianism that they've tried to plant without having to win elections or pass Amendments, but simply to put five people on the Supreme Court who will interpret it into existence and strike down any law challenging it.

That is a coup d'etat, not a shift in judicial philosophy. Whether striking down critical portions of the Voting Rights Act or holding the corporations have the Constitutional rights of individuals, this court is attempting to interpret the Constitution out of existence and put in its place a completely different form of government. And like all forms of government, to really come into effect, this Zeroth Amendment state needs your tacit permission to function - it needs your agreement to abide by the lawless, alternate-universe, Neo-Confederate findings of this revolutionary right-wing Supreme Court.

If activism opposing these decisions is explicit that these decisions are lawless and hold no authority, then at least this country has a chance, because we will have kept alive the crucial idea that the Constitution is a pact with each and every one of us - not some obscurantist divine doctrine that only some insular priesthood is qualified to understand and interpret.

At least speaking for myself, the Supreme Court has since 2000 greatly weakened its own authority where I as a citizen am concerned. And where decisions like Citizens United, the ruling striking down parts of VRA, and this Hobby Lobby case are concerned, it has no authority whatsoever. Corporations are not persons. They do not have Constitutional rights. Money is not speech. The United States of America has never agreed to a Zeroth Amendment, and will never agree to one. And if it ever comes to a point where these decisions are interpreted in a way that directly limits my freedom rather than merely diluting it by empowering corrupt forces, I will defy any such move and exercise my rights anyway - not merely complain or argue.

While the assault on our rights remains indirect, defying it will be harder, but at the very least we can deny them what fraction of authority comes from treating their actions as legitimate. For now, we can settle for stating as a fact that: Corporations do not have the rights this Court asserts, because such would plainly violate the rights of the people as explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and we as citizens pledge to take no action that would implicitly or explicitly recognize such privileges, nor fail to take lawful actions denying those privileges for fear of retribution.

Sorry if I've rambled, but this decision really got my goat. There is no such Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution, so conservatives really need to stop interpreting laws as if there were one, and we need to stop pretending that their acts of radical undemocratic revolution are differences of opinion undertaken lawfully by legitimate authorities. We need to acknowledge that these decisions are not part of the jurisprudence of the United States of America, but the dogmas of a schismatic revolutionary state with no legitimacy.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Zeroth Amendment: The Basis of All "Modern" Conservative Jurisprudence (Original Post) True Blue Door Jul 2014 OP
Corporate law protects the Zeros. postulater Jul 2014 #1
Brilliant. I think you've spotted the End Game quite accurately: Corporate "Voting" Rights. WinkyDink Jul 2014 #2
An excellent analysis, sir al bupp Jul 2014 #3
Zeroth law is from Asimov. riqster Jul 2014 #28
Right. Laws exist to protect the rich and their property. nt valerief Jul 2014 #4
Would it be clearer ... JEFF9K Jul 2014 #5
Kick.... daleanime Jul 2014 #6
Corporations are people, my friend. DirkGently Jul 2014 #7
K&R! If one wants to be the cure, one must stop being the disease. raouldukelives Jul 2014 #8
Don't leave out this week's anti-union decison starroute Jul 2014 #9
DURec leftstreet Jul 2014 #10
K&R ReRe Jul 2014 #11
Everyone who wishes is welcome to republish my writing anywhere. True Blue Door Jul 2014 #27
Well said. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #12
The coup de-tat started with the Bush selection lark Jul 2014 #13
It's all about the Golden Rule... Viva_Daddy Jul 2014 #14
Top notch writing and analysis, Blue. Mc Mike Jul 2014 #15
Didn't one of the The Wizard Jul 2014 #16
Welcome to DU, True Blue Door! calimary Jul 2014 #17
Excellent analysis, TBD The Traveler Jul 2014 #18
K&R for Necessary Read. Thanks. A superbly well written editorial. misterhighwasted Jul 2014 #19
Welcome True Blue Door. I enjoy your DU Journal also misterhighwasted Jul 2014 #20
Beyond "judicial activism" JackHughes Jul 2014 #21
between the old fundies and confederates, and the new libertarians who might be the party's future, paulkienitz Jul 2014 #22
Bwahaha! I love how Asimov fan's minds work. Motown_Johnny Jul 2014 #23
pish posh Cosmocat Jul 2014 #24
Excellent post----Good point! nikto Jul 2014 #25
Zeroth Amendment. Bookmarked, Journaled, Kicked and Rec'd. Thanks, very good. freshwest Jul 2014 #26
Nice post, and good to see Asimov referenced! riqster Jul 2014 #29
Great rant! K&R bluestateboomer Jul 2014 #30
Excellent post, thanks True Blue Door. Scuba Jul 2014 #31

postulater

(5,075 posts)
1. Corporate law protects the Zeros.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:55 AM
Jul 2014

And they will not allow substantive changes to it.

Alternate structures must supplant them.

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
5. Would it be clearer ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:38 AM
Jul 2014

... to call it the 0th Amendment? And does starting it out with "Thou shalt" make it a hybrid of an Amendment and a Commandment?

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
8. K&R! If one wants to be the cure, one must stop being the disease.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:58 AM
Jul 2014

Sadly, for every person who is legitimately concerned about AGW, ocean acidification, loss of fresh water, extinction of animals and the destruction of our Constitution there are a hundred corporate investors busily assuring that not only will nothing will ever change, it will get much worse.

starroute

(12,977 posts)
9. Don't leave out this week's anti-union decison
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:27 PM
Jul 2014

Back in 2005, when the Democrats were opposing some of Bush's most extreme judicial nominations, I did a little digging to find out exactly what was so objectionable about them. What I discovered was not only problematic racial and sexual biases but also a persistent pattern of opposition to the rights of workers, consumers, prisoners, and plaintiffs in general.

For example, one description of Judge Janice Rogers Brown referred to her "persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers' rights, and criminal rights." (Brown was confirmed as part of the Gang of 14 deal and currently sits on the DC Court of Appeals.)

A description of Judge Priscilla Owen said that "this Texas Supreme Court justice has consistently demonstrated hostility toward anti-discrimination lawsuits, the protection of reproductive rights, and of plaintiffs’ rights. Judge Owen’s record reveals her to be an activist judge who has routinely dissented on rulings regarding the rights of employees, including the right to be free from invidious discrimination." (The Gang of 14 deal put Owen on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she was mentioned during the Bush years as a possible Supreme Court nominee.)

These are the people who are likely to wind up on the Supreme Court if a future Republican president has any say in the matter -- and they're overwhelmingly guided by an anti-ordinary people mentality.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
11. K&R
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:02 PM
Jul 2014

Shoot that to PO and as a letter to the editor to the NYTimes & LA Times. Heck send it to every major paper in every state of the Union! Do it now! It might make the Sunday editions if you start right now this minute. Please? That is a tremendous editorial on what is happening/has happened to the Supreme Court and therefore to our country. You know, this is what I said the other day somewhere her on DU in a reply: "..in a way, this [the recent SC decisions, especially the HL decision] reminds me of 2000." Again, outstanding essay!

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
27. Everyone who wishes is welcome to republish my writing anywhere.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:44 PM
Jul 2014

Please feel free to send it anywhere you think might be interested in publishing. I give everyone full permission to reprint everywhere.

lark

(23,003 posts)
13. The coup de-tat started with the Bush selection
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:24 PM
Jul 2014

and has run unchecked since then. I don't even recognize this country anymore, it's become so hate filled and violent - by design.

Excelelnt and so sadly true OP.

calimary

(80,700 posts)
17. Welcome to DU, True Blue Door!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:34 PM
Jul 2014

Glad you're here! DAYUM this is a great essay! Excellent premise quite brilliantly explained, dissected, and developed. I think your point is VERY well-taken and sure seems to sum up the underpinnings of the new madness we're now forced to live with. Once again, I feel like I'm a hostage in a strange and foreign land. Felt that way throughout bush/cheney. Hell, felt that way throughout the reagan hell, too.

 

The Traveler

(5,632 posts)
18. Excellent analysis, TBD
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:16 PM
Jul 2014

And as uncomfortable as I find the conclusion, I find it difficult to refute in concrete terms.

Welcome to DU, BTW. I love the place. It's kinda like Fight Club, without the rules.

Trav

misterhighwasted

(9,148 posts)
19. K&R for Necessary Read. Thanks. A superbly well written editorial.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:38 PM
Jul 2014

Please reach the masses with this.

Permission to re-post with credit to the writer. Many need to read this
Thank You

JackHughes

(166 posts)
21. Beyond "judicial activism"
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:01 PM
Jul 2014

The radical "Federalist Society 5" Republican justices of the Rehnquist-Roberts era has gone beyond "judicial activism" into "judicial tyranny."

paulkienitz

(1,295 posts)
22. between the old fundies and confederates, and the new libertarians who might be the party's future,
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:22 PM
Jul 2014

defending the privileged is really the only common ground.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
23. Bwahaha! I love how Asimov fan's minds work.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:12 PM
Jul 2014

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The problem is that Amendments do not preempt each other.


The Laws are different.




Not that I disagree with your basic rational. I don't. You simply need to apply some psychohistory to our current situation and understand that the social pressures in place cannot be denied.



Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
24. pish posh
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:53 PM
Jul 2014

Yes, the zeroehth amendment has some real basis in reality.

But, this ruling wasn't about corporations.

There is no measurable benefit here financially ... a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction on the bottom line.

This was about red meat, and placating the mean spirited, blood thirsty hordes who vote republican.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Zeroth Amendment: The...