Found at Huliq News:
Following is a statement by Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader:
The word “corporation” or “company,” or the words “political party,” do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. How then can these two excluded corporate institutions have such power over Americans who, as “real people,” are the only “persons” protected and given rights under our Constitution?
Corporations are artificial legal entities. They are not human beings. They do not vote. They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in Iraq. Why have they been given all the rights under our Constitution, except for the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and why did they obtain these rights from judges, not from the legislature?
I put these and other questions in writing to Justice Antonin Scalia — deemed an extremely conservative judge who believes in “originalism,” or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Recently, Justice Scalia and I caught up together on the phone: I asked him how the application of the Bill of Rights and related constitutional protections to the artificial creations known as corporations can be squared with a constitutional interpretation theory of “originalism?”
Justice Scalia said he had not put much thought into unconstitutional corporate personhood, but if a case was brought before him on the topic, he would be happy to delve into it.
Unconstitutional corporate personhood is the central issue that prevents equal justice under the law and provides privileges and immunities to corporations completely outside of the framers’ frame of reference in that large hot room in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
The $700 billion blank check bailout of Wall Street is the latest manifestation of private corporate domination of our national government, a situation that Franklin Delano Roosevelt foresaw as “fascism” in a message to Congress in 1938. The relentless decline in the livelihood of America’s working families and growing unemployed reflects the radical concentration of power and wealth in a few hands.
To turn back this tide, the first step is for someone among the legal community — the sooner the better — to bring a case centering on unconstitutional corporate personhood to the fore on the floor of the Supreme Court.
And then, perhaps, Justice Scalia’s originalism can be brought to bare on restoring justice and allowing the Constitution’s words “we the people,” to once again ring true.
*Please see link to Mr. Nader’s letter to Justice Scalia: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/271-Letter-from-Ralph-Nader-and-Rob-Weissman-to-Justice-Scalia.html

Why is it too much to ask for a party that opposes both big government and big corporations? After all big government is what allows big corporations to get and stay big.
Agreed as well. One of the main reasons I supported Ralph Nader this election was for being against Corporate Welfare and Corporate Personhood. Corporations should not be defended under our Constitution, it’s ludicrous.
Well, unfortunately, “Ralph Ralph Nader …” is what google captured. It’s on News, Blogs, and Web.
I was thinking that you meant, “Ralph Malph Nader.” “He’s got it, he’s still got it!”
Thanks for trying. Actually, it was not me…rather, Gregg’s wife, by way of Gregg.
I whispered, “fix the headline.” Too quietly. (I used angle brackets to indicate the whisper, so the text didn’t print.) I see you already fixed it.
Thanks!
It’s true, the women are smarter 🙂
Hey paulie,
I think this is one example of a place where Libertarians and Greens could find common ground. I did also want to point out that I changed the title from “Ralph Ralph Nader” to “Ralph Nader”. My wife noticed. 🙂 She’s smart.
Is Mr. Dance voting “present”?
Agreed.
The LP used to be on record about this. It should be again.
Ralph Nader brings up a good point here, a point which (unfortunately) some Libertarians do not get.
Corporations as they currently exsist are NOT a true representation of the free market.