Behavior" given, nor does recent history show us any consistent method of accountability that protects thePeople or the States from judicial "bad Behavior". Indeed, the phrase "good Behavior" has beenhistorically misinterpreted to mean "appointed for life." These permanent appointments result in Judgesthat become ﬁrmly entrenched and nearly unaccountable to the People for the decisions that they make.42.
43.We believe that due to this misinterpretation, the Supreme Court has obtained unbalanced, far-reachingpowers well beyond the intention of our forefathers. The People have no reasonable recourse if theseJudges prove to be partisan and refuse to rule in the Best Interest--or if they fail to uphold and defend theConstitution. Justices appointed for life terms can easily dodge accountability, as history has so proven.44.
45.Many examples of truly questionable Supreme Court decisions exist.46.
47.In Santa Clara County v. Southern Paciﬁc Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Court decided thatcorporations were recognized as "persons" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. This gavecorporations the same legal rights as a living, breathing individual. Yet, the corporations enjoy other legalprotections not afforded to real persons, such as tax shelters and loopholes, liability shields and others.This grants them unbalanced protections that lead directly to unfair opportunities for governmentalinﬂuence at a disproportionate level than that of the People.48.
49.In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, (2010), the Court ruled 5-4 that thegovernment may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. This decision in partlead to the creation of the "super PAC", by which corporations, special interests and the afﬂuent candonate unlimited amounts of money anonymously through 501(c)(4) corporations, leaving the entirepolitical process unaccountable, untraceable and with the People unable to execute a Public audit of thefunding of political campaigns. The Supreme Court also struck down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act, Public Law 107-155 (2001) that prohibited all corporations, both for-proﬁt and not-for-proﬁt, as well as unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications." Alarmingly, the decisionitself also notes that, 'It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings,no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to besure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal ﬁction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.' If this is the case, why thenwere they given the same rights as ﬂesh and blood persons under the Fourteenth Amendment when theyarguably are not equal? How can the common People compete against such invisible and unaccountableﬁnancial inﬂuence upon politics? The consequences of this have been disastrous. This form of court-sponsored "political "money laundering" has served to corrupt our system in favor of the "1%".50.
51.The general attitude that the Supreme Court is perfect and void of corruption internally and thus remainimmune from scrutiny has caused yet more damage. Our history is rife with examples of the Judiciaryoverstepping their bounds. In fact, one case illustrates their large contribution towards the start of CivilWar. In Dred Scott v. Sandford,
ruled 7-2 that people of African descentbrought into the United States and held as slaves
(or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves)were not protected by the
Constitution, could not sue in court
and could never be U.S. citizens. It took theCivil War, the loss of countless lives and not one but two Constitutional Amendments (AmendmentsThirteen and Fourteen) to even begin to repair the damage that the Court inﬂicted on the People with thisdecision.52.
53.Yet, even with two Amendments ratiﬁed after the War, that were in part intended to prevent the supremeand all lower courts from continuing to make such socially divisive decisions of this nature, the SupremeCourt later opted to breach even these key additions to the Constitution in future decisions.54.
55.Over thirty years beyond the end of the Civil War, in Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 537
(1896), the Courtvoted 7-1 in favor of upholding the constitutionality
of state laws requiring
in privatebusinesses (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". This segregation betweenraces remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its unanimous repudiation in the Supreme Court