22-05-2014, 01:17 PM
I think the two cases are fundamentally different, and I hope that they are decided differently. In one case, its individual property owners suing to regain the right to use their property as they see fit. Seems to me that they should be allowed to exercise those rights, unless fracking is so inherently dangerous that its practice endangers others or affects others property rights (then the government is justified in stepping in). So expect that case to be about the dangers of fracking.
The other case is corporations using fracking on public lands. Since the "public" is the landowner, its not really a property rights case. The only constitutional right involved is the "due process" right, which says the government can't take something of value away from you without notice and a hearing. Corporations (because they are groups of "real people") should continue to have due process rights. The real constitutional question in that case would be whether or not fracking has already been going on, by these corporations, and now whether the government is "taking" that from them. There might also be a conflict between local, and state, and federal governments on who has the authority to issue such restrictions.
I agree that corporations (as "artificial people" - a creation of statutory law) should not have any fundamental constitutional rights except as they are derived from the people who comprise them, i.e. the right of peaceful assembly, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and due process. It is a mistake to give a corporation the right to (for instance) free speech, the right to remain silent, or to contribute to political campaigns, etc., not least because it implies that the corporation has a right to exist which is independent of the laws and the government which permitted it to exist in the first place. A corporation with the constitutional rights of a real person is a Frankensteins' Monster permitted to overpower its creator and run amok. To the extent that our constitution permits that, it needs to be amended.
The other case is corporations using fracking on public lands. Since the "public" is the landowner, its not really a property rights case. The only constitutional right involved is the "due process" right, which says the government can't take something of value away from you without notice and a hearing. Corporations (because they are groups of "real people") should continue to have due process rights. The real constitutional question in that case would be whether or not fracking has already been going on, by these corporations, and now whether the government is "taking" that from them. There might also be a conflict between local, and state, and federal governments on who has the authority to issue such restrictions.
I agree that corporations (as "artificial people" - a creation of statutory law) should not have any fundamental constitutional rights except as they are derived from the people who comprise them, i.e. the right of peaceful assembly, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and due process. It is a mistake to give a corporation the right to (for instance) free speech, the right to remain silent, or to contribute to political campaigns, etc., not least because it implies that the corporation has a right to exist which is independent of the laws and the government which permitted it to exist in the first place. A corporation with the constitutional rights of a real person is a Frankensteins' Monster permitted to overpower its creator and run amok. To the extent that our constitution permits that, it needs to be amended.