Rights Revoked for Low Asset Classes
JCwire, Washington
In a surprise announcement today, the US Supreme Court issued it’s ruling in the Halves vs. Nada case regarding curtailment of rights to those of limited socioeconomic status. Reading for the 5-4 majority, Justice John G. Roberts stated that “the Founding Fathers did not intend for all persons to share in the rights created for those with property.”
Citing biographical data from that original era, Justice Roberts described the Founding Fathers themselves as well educated, monied aristocrats who could afford to spend time forming and leading a country. “Although this may not sound very P.C., the truth is that the Founders were basically a small clique of rich white guys. You need a management team like this to start such a major enterprise.”
Civil rights groups have opposed the case as disenfranchisement based upon wealth or lack thereof while Republicans have called for such re-balancing of the electorate since losing the White House in 2008. Constitutional law professors have been popular participants on talk shows, although they could seldom be heard over the shouts of the hosts. The Supreme Court’s ruling was not expected until next summer.
“That ‘all men are created equal’ was just some literary license taken by Jefferson when writing the Declaration,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “For example, women weren’t initially included, nor were slaves. The common theme among these excluded groups was neither gender nor race, but the simple lack of ownership of any appreciable assets. Therefore it is clear that the Constitution intended to bestow rights on those responsible enough to have accumulated a stake in the new country. Others were just not players in the game.”
The American Civil Liberties Union claimed that half of its membership could no longer rally to various causes, stripped of their power to vote. Unions began drawing up plans to strike for higher wages to raise their members above the minimum asset level. Meanwhile, Accountancy firms immediately raised their hiring targets and Financial Advisers, their fees.
“It’s all well and good for a society to provide for less fortunate souls,” elaborated Justice Roberts; “but that doesn’t imply that they should take part in running the show. One can be generous to hired help, but they don’t take part in the household decisions. In other words, they’re not really family.”
In his majority assent, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged the claims made by Nada that the defendants had made great contributions to the country’s economic success. “However, we have established a long tradition of granting decision-making power to those managing the economic process, not those working the factory floor or farm fields. The Halves have always exercised greater influence, demonstrating their steadier hand on the tiller of state. While our capitalist democracy has elevated millions into the ranks of the Halves, the Constitution makes no guarantee that all will pass through these gates.” Offering a promise of a better future to those seemingly forgotten by this ruling, Justice Scalia emphasized, “The hope remains for hard-working individualists to take part in our great institution, and of course those with trusts and inheritances once they turn 21.”
Obama administration spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters that the President was reviewing the ruling but didn’t think it was going to be a good move for the country. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lambasted the ruling, claiming it will split the country in half. “This just shows how out of touch with current reality the Democrats are,” stated Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “With the widening gaps in income and wealth since the beginning of the second Bush dynasty, way more than half the population will fall below the minimum asset level.” He called for new elections based on the retro-active voter fraud created by the ruling. “Harry, step aside,” he said in closing. “I’m coming back!”
Questioned as to the exact asset amount that would be required for democratic participation, Justice Kennedy confessed some quandary in reaching a detailed figure. “Half of us were for the Halves, half for the Nadas. We were almost at a 50/50 split, so we decided $50,000 was a good enough number and cheered. Clarence woke up, sided with us, and that sealed the deal.”
An unlikely ally to the opponents of the ruling surfaced as Media studios voiced their objections. “This totally reverses decades of drama in books, movies and television of Rags to Riches heroism, of the poor but noble iconoclast,” stated a spokesperson from Disney. “We’ll have to rewrite and remake countless media properties to correct thematic assumptions. The cost could bring our industry to its knees and bring some owners below the base asset line themselves!”
Antonin Scalia explained the apparent haste of the ruling. “Look, we have a lot of cases on the docket, the term ended in June, it’s hot as hell in Washington. We had to clear our desks and get out of town! Let’s move forward already! Besides, this is completely consistent with Citizens United.”