Legal Doctrine as Power Mechanism
How courts reshape law through doctrinal evolution to serve capital concentration
Overview
Legal doctrine has evolved over 150+ years to serve corporate interests and capital concentration. Courts have rewritten antitrust law, expanded corporate rights, and narrowed worker and consumer protections.
The Pattern
Each doctrinal shift follows same pattern: (1) Courts invent new doctrine without statutory basis, (2) Doctrine is used to enable corporate consolidation, (3) Doctrine is expanded to protect corporate interests, (4) Alternative doctrines are suppressed.
Examples
- ✗Consumer welfare standard (invented 1979, adopted 1986) enabled corporate consolidation
- ✗Corporate personhood (1886) expanded to political speech (1978) to unlimited spending (2010)
- ✗Qualified immunity (1967) expanded to make officials immune from constitutional violations
- ✗State action doctrine (1883) used to exempt corporations from constitutional obligations
Constitutional Remedy
Constitutional remedies: Article VI oath enforcement against judges rewriting law, void ab initio doctrine for decisions based on judicial invention, state interposition to enforce constitutional law.
Key Insight
Legal doctrine is not discovered in the Constitution—it is invented by courts. When courts invent doctrine to serve corporate interests, they are exercising power, not interpreting law. Constitutional remedies can challenge these judicial inventions and restore the rule of law.
Legal doctrine is invented, not discovered: Courts do not find doctrine in the Constitution—they invent it. When courts invent doctrine to serve corporate interests, they are exercising power, not interpreting law.
Doctrinal evolution follows a pattern: Courts invent doctrine, then expand it, then use it to enable corporate consolidation. Each shift serves corporate interests and harms workers, consumers, and small businesses.
Supreme Court ideology shifted from pro-worker to pro-corporate: From the New Deal era (pro-regulation) to the Conservative Revolution (pro-business) to the Neoliberal Consolidation (pro- corporate), the Court has systematically rewritten law to serve capital concentration.
Constitutional remedies can challenge judicial inventions: Article VI oath enforcement, void ab initio doctrine, and state interposition provide constitutional mechanisms to challenge doctrinal inventions and restore the rule of law.