The Healing of the Chesapeake Offers Insight Into an Important Social Phenomenon
Whether or not they’re keeping track of the results, most Americans have heard of the initiative aimed at restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay–reducing the levels of pollution and building back the ecosystems. Formed by the confluence of hundreds of streams and rivers from six states and the District of Columbia, the Bay happens to have been central to the development of the U.S. as a nation; it’s where many important battles of the American Revolution and the Civil War were fought, and is perhaps most famous as the location at which the nation’s anthem, the “Star Spangled Banner,” was written 205 years ago.
Until fairly recently, the run-off of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers from regional agriculture, as well as pollution from all kinds of other human activity in the local urban and suburban areas had all but eliminated most forms of life in the Bay.
But as it turns out, this restoration project has been going very well in recent years. Chemical pollution has been greatly reduced, and dead zones (volumes of water where the dissolved oxygen content is too low to support the fish and crustaceans for which the Bay has historically been known) have been slowly shrinking; in fact, they’ve been entirely absent for the last two years. Professional and recreational crabbing is back, and pollution-related sicknesses are down, to the joy of the many millions of people who live in that region.
All this good news is due to two important vectors:
1) Legislation, largely based at the state and local levels, to limit the dumping of harmful chemicals into waterways that lead to the Bay, combined with the work of the EPA at the federal level, which is commonly regarded as the “glue” that holds these regional efforts together.
2) Social forces, in which companies that have extended their middle finger to our people and our environment, and have continued to dump effluent into the Bay, are held in extremely low regard, and have suffered huge economic consequences.
Not surprisingly, under the Trump budget proposal, federal funding (through the EPA) to continue these efforts will be cut from $73 million annually to zero. Moreover, the dismantling of the Clean Water Plan, which ensures drinkable water for 117 million Americans, is a bit scary as well, to say the least.
Yet we need to recognize the importance of the second point above. Whether you’re an individual person or a fictitious person (a corporation), it has become socially unacceptable to maximize profit at the expense of the health and safety of those around you, and this is true regardless of how completely the laws that restrict pollution are eviscerated.
Maybe this is something we knew all along: the defense against environmental catastrophe lies mainly in the hands of people like you and me, by telling offenders: You stop polluting, or we’ll stop you.
Craig,
Cleaning Chesapeake Bay, or any area degraded by years of industrial waste is to be commended.
Responsible legislation to prevent environmental pollution and contamination is essential in any modern society and the principle of holding polluters to account is well established.
So why do you find it necessary to insert politically charged, divisive and irreverent propaganda into an otherwise good news story.
Corporations are not “fictitious persons”, they are legal entities. Legal entities, whether corporate, natural or otherwise all share certain legal responsibilities,obligations,sanctions, privileges and rights.
The Trump administration is not “dismantling” the Clean Water Plan, it’s simply transfer administration back to the states.
The President’s position is very clear, he simply wants to hand what he believes is an abuse of Executive power, back to the Legislatures. He argues the Obama years, witnessed Congress and the State legislatures being deliberately bypassed by an expansion of Presidential (executive) power.
He’s also seeking to cut duplication and waste in a bloated bureaucracy.
It’s a bit baffling how you can claim a President espousing a policy of handing back powers acquired by the Executive to the legislature, is behaving like a “Tyrant” “Sociopath” etc ?
If the Clean water plan is so vital to 117 million people, then it should be properly debated, and voted into law by the people through their elected representatives.
The concept that a President and government agencies can conspire to avoid the process of legislation by regulation, is an erosion of representative democracy.
The rehabilitation of Chesapeake Bay is a great and inspiring accomplishment. Why mar the occasion with a few cheat shots ?
If you think corporations are not “fictitious persons,” you just need to look it up in a good legal dictionary.
Craig,
I usually refer to the “Oxford Dictionary of Law” , since definitions in this venerable publication are pretty much recognized throughout the English speaking world.
The ODL entry reads as follows.
Corporation
1 ) A large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law.
B) a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.
“the City of London Corporation”.
All major US legal dictionary, including Harvard, pretty much concur. Ie: Merriam Webster ;
1 a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild (see guild 1)b : the municipal authorities of a town or city
2 : a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
4: potbelly
However, after some hunting, I found an American definition from the “Free Dictionary” ;
” an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. One benefit is that a corporation’s liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud ”
Note the term artificial.
You have taken “artificial” [ made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural] and wrongly construed it to mean “fictitious” [not real or true,sham, fabricated, or counterfeit] :
Which is why in all statutes, petitions and pleadings, only the terms ” legal entities” , and “Natural persons ” are employed.
Legal entities including corporations, are nor “fictitious” nor are they natural persons. Over the years Legislatures have endowed Legal Entities with some of the rights, responsibilities and obligations formerly reserved for individuals, including ;
1) Pay tax
2) be subject to all law including corporate law.
3) Be held civilly and criminally liable.
4)Charged with various degrees of treason
5) Obey conventions and International Law.
Along with other obligations and liabilities.
(Legal Entities include Unions and even churches)
So you see, I saw what you did there:)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
Persons are of two kinds: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: (persona ficta) entities such as corporations, which are treated in law as if they are persons.[1][4][5]
Craig,
Oh C’mon, that’s kinda desperate !
You ask for “good legal dictionary” as a source, I reply citing three major legal dictionaries including Harvard, Merriam-Webster and Oxford, with definitions, and you counter with,….Wikipedia !
Don’t get me wrong, I like Wikipedia, I think it’s a great project and has enormously contributed to public knowledge, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard it quoted as an authoritative source to refute the Oxford Dictionary !
You deliberately employed the word ‘fictitious’ to convey a political, not descriptive meaning. Why not just admit your agenda instead of trying to justify a political agenda by disingenuous distortion.
Like I said, I saw what you did….
Wikipedia was the first thing I came up with. I tend to be a bit lazy sometimes. If you Google the subject, you’ll find lots of things that will help you understand this better.
Craig,
I think I have some small grasp of the subject, but then I have the advantage of a masters degree in law, and even completed post grad in the US to qualify to practice in several US states.
🙂 Sounds like an excellent start.
Craig,
Reviewing my previous comment, I think I should explain why the term ‘fictitious’ should never be used in a legal context when referring to the status of corporations.
Lawyers,(and legal dictionaries)understand that all ‘law’ and human institutions are ‘artificial’. Organized civilization is a human construct. It doesn’t occur in nature.
The status of institutions in the English speaking world follow principles of created by human convention or legislation. ‘Natural’, or Divine law has no place our legal system.
The status or rights of any institution can never be ‘fictitious’, because they they exist within the context of law. The term “legal entity” implies an institution endowed by law with some of the same attributes as a natural person for the purpose of law.
‘Legal entities’ encompass a wide range of organizations, structures and institutions. Legal entities are not ‘natural persons. The rights of legal entities are real,(not ‘fictitious’), but the big difference is their rights are not ‘unalienable’. they exist only within the context of the law.
The US Supreme Court recognized this status existed and was supported by legislation tied to the US Constitution.
the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and many other nations have all applied similar principles since the late 19th century and although often challenged, this principle has survived, more or less intact.
It’s not ‘fiction’, although terms like “corporate citizen’ is just a lawyers term of convenience. Unfortunately this term is often interpreted too literally by non-lawyers,leading to confusion. .
Unlike real Law Dictionaries, Wikipedia is not written by, or for, Lawyers. It’s understandable someone of your passionate beliefs could honestly misconstrue what to the layman must seem a subtle distinction.