Written by Thomas Magstadt   

The founding fathers created a constitutional democracy in which blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human being. The Supreme Court for nearly a century (until after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments) had no trouble with that formula.

As Mitt Romney reminded voters at the Iowa State Fair, the Supreme Court also ruled a long time ago that corporations are people. More recently, that august body in its superior wisdom decided corporations actually have key rights 99% of the population do not have, namely the right to buy politicians.

Some people think that's ludicrous on its face, but they don't understand the Constitution or the demands of jurisprudence at that rarefied level of legal reasoning. A right that can only be exercised by the super rich is perfectly...well, it's just perfect, full stop.

You see, the Bill of Rights (an afterthought, by the way) gives individuals the right of free speech and it's glaringly obvious to a majority of our Supreme Court justices that giving money to political candidates to subvert the legislative process and screw the middle class is a form of free speech. It's right there in the First Amendment. Go have a look!

Still don't see it? Maybe you need glasses or an Ivy League law degree.

The reason the 1% have that special right and the 99% do not have it is self-evident to lawyers, the American Enterprise Institute, the CEOs of the 37 giant corporations that paid no taxes in 2011, the Koch brothers, and, of course, any Republican who wants to be president, to include Herman Cain (aka, the Koch family's "other brother"). Here's what "Republican" presidential candidate, Ron Paul, has to say on the subject:

"The so-called reform legislation being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. While some in the media have raised First amendment questions, few seem to understand that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to regulate campaigns at all."

Still don't get it? Okay, let me try to explain it another way: Some rights have to be earned, while others are inherent. Only the truly meritorious can earn the right to buy politicians. By amassing great fortunes, the 1% have earned this right and proven they have merits the middle-class and poor utterly lack.

That these fortunes have grown by leaps and bounds since the Reagan Revolution and economic inequality has risen to levels not known in the US since the run-up to the Great Depression proves conclusively that the Occupy movement has it all wrong. The super rich have used their wealth wisely by investing in the political process (not to mention China, India, and offshore oil drilling) rather than in silly things like domestic job creation and alternative energy. Brilliant!

The Occupy crowd and propagandists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz would have us all believe that they know more about how to fix what's wrong with the economy than Congress does! FOX News is right: it's a left-wing conspiracy.

Anyway, getting back to the idea of rights based on merit and money. The rich have plenty of the latter, which proves they have more of the former, too. The result has been a bonanza for the plutocracy, as Congress has excused them from paying billions and billions in taxes they would owe without the loopholes that exist only for that purpose, while giving them subsidies that make the paltry state and federal programs aimed at helping elderly, sick, and poor people pale by comparison.

So there's no doubt that Eric Canter, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich are right – the rich deserve everything they get. And so much more.