|
|
Post by bigmeow on Nov 1, 2011 0:58:27 GMT -6
John,
I like the simplicity while all-encompassing. However, the problem we are trying to fix was caused by a self-serving interpretation of the first amendment. I fear that a future congress or court will interpret "any political purpose" in the same self-serving manor, especially given that this would (in my interpretation) make unconstitutional all the activities of pacs and political parties.
Endorsing personal contributions directly in an amendment, without specifying either a limit or that a limit must be legislated, may also be interpreted in a self-serving manor by presuming the intent is to remove limits - again, especially since pacs and parties would be obsolete. I'd feel better if sec 3 included set limits.
"any political purpose" could easily be interpreted to mean only campaign coffers or everything from pacs, parties, and direct advertisements to lobbying. That's too much spectrum.
Barb D.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 1, 2011 8:55:26 GMT -6
John, I like the simplicity while all-encompassing. However, the problem we are trying to fix was caused by a self-serving interpretation of the first amendment. I fear that a future congress or court will interpret "any political purpose" in the same self-serving manor, especially given that this would (in my interpretation) make unconstitutional all the activities of pacs and political parties. Seeing that PACs and political parties are included as entities created by law, it would be well nigh impossible to get contributions from them. No matter how self serving the pols might want to be, that stops them in their tracks. Endorsing personal contributions directly in an amendment, without specifying either a limit or that a limit must be legislated, may also be interpreted in a self-serving manor by presuming the intent is to remove limits - again, especially since pacs and parties would be obsolete. I'd feel better if sec 3 included set limits. Forcing personal contributions is only one object of the amendment. Section 3 calls for legislation to set whatever limits the people deem appropriate. It's called real politics, not the phony garbage we have been stuck with recently. "any political purpose" could easily be interpreted to mean only campaign coffers or everything from pacs, parties, and direct advertisements to lobbying. That's too much spectrum. Barb D. Again, PACs and parties are forbidden from contributing `to any political purpose', as are all other non-people. Just think that through. Individual people can make contributions, thereby becoming engaged in the civil life of the nation. That has been passed over to `someone else' for far too long, the someone else of PAC, union, party, special interest group, etc. We have an extremely serious problem. We need radical change to confront it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 2, 2011 2:37:25 GMT -6
I'm firmly in support of having separate amendments to address separate issues, regardless of how closely related the issues are. At a real ConCon, we'd have to be able to sell these amendments to everyone else. I am almost positive that Sect. 1 of our current 28th Amend. would pass. Campaign finance stuff is somewhat harder to argue. I don't want to risk bogging down the corporate personhood amendment with campaign finance stuff.
When it comes to your actual language, I don't necessarily disagree with what you have there. Although I do have concerns about its vagueness and would like specifics written into the Constitution, I understand that you want to leave a lot of the regulation of specifics to Congress as you feel it is the job and purpose of Congress to do so.
I have to ask, why is your Sec 1 better than the current Sec 1 of the 28th? Isn't our current language sufficient and perhaps even better in that it reserves Constitutional protection of rights for only Citizens? Because it doesn't say that constitutional rights are reserved for people, it just says Congress can't make a law abridging certain rights. The technical problem here may not actually be corporate personhood. Many other grouping of people are considered "people". United States Code, Sec 1 states:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"
Acts of Congress should affect and apply to corporations and other organizations. Removing the personhood of corporations would mean the many existing laws would no longer apply to them, which is not what we want. It's just that they shouldn't have the constitutional rights and protections of people (or perhaps just not the protections of speech?) because they can abuse it which is why I used the language I did. However, if corporations and other organizations can still legally be treated as "people" under acts of Congress, we must have specifics in reforming campaign finances written into the Constitution to avoid the possibility of Congress messing everything up.
I want to note it is very late where I am so if I said any confusing thing, let me know and I'll explain when I'm 100% awake.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas360 on Nov 2, 2011 18:42:26 GMT -6
One more thing. Is it OK that millionaires will use their own money to get elected a la Bloomberg? Let's think about this... pardon if posted in wrong place.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 2, 2011 23:17:06 GMT -6
I'm firmly in support of having separate amendments to address separate issues, regardless of how closely related the issues are. At a real ConCon, we'd have to be able to sell these amendments to everyone else. I am almost positive that Sect. 1 of our current 28th Amend. would pass. Campaign finance stuff is somewhat harder to argue. I don't want to risk bogging down the corporate personhood amendment with campaign finance stuff.
When it comes to your actual language, I don't necessarily disagree with what you have there. Although I do have concerns about its vagueness and would like specifics written into the Constitution, I understand that you want to leave a lot of the regulation of specifics to Congress as you feel it is the job and purpose of Congress to do so. I have to ask, why is your Sec 1 better than the current Sec 1 of the 28th? Isn't our current language sufficient and perhaps even better in that it reserves Constitutional protection of rights for only Citizens? Because it doesn't say that constitutional rights are reserved for people, it just says Congress can't make a law abridging certain rights. The technical problem here may not actually be corporate personhood. Many other grouping of people are considered "people". United States Code, Sec 1 states: Any amendment will modify, and change or negate, everything in the constitution up to that amendment. So, protection by the constitution will be closed to any non-person if "Sec 1. Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution." is adopted into the constitution. It will remove protections afforded by the constitution from anything not a natural person. That holds a nightmare of evil possibilities. For example, your Sec 1 would remove the protections of the 6th and 7th and 8th amendments from any entity not a person. One could easily defend the whim of a judge, or city counsel, or even a star chamber, imposing an unusual punishment to unjustly impact an enemy's enterprise; it has no rights under the constitution. You would remove protection for trial by jury of any non person entity. Speedy trials, public trials, impartial jury, trial in state or district of alleged offense, all these and more would be lost to `entities.' Removal of equality, removal of the protections of trial, and removal of restrictions for punishment methods and punishments are something the removal of all constitutional rights from any non-person would accomplish. That is not a helpful effect. My section one simply declares a corporation or other artificial entity to not be a person and removes the rights of persons as applying to a corporation or other artificial entity. That is not the same as removing all constitutional protection from corporations and other artificial entities. As to campaign finance stuff, the 28th amendment as first presented includes stiff statements restricting campaign finance. My revision simply presents different stiff statements restricting campaign finance. Your previous argument for separating the 28th as presented into two amendments used the triplet of amendments 13, 14, and 15 as closely related and passed, but at different times. They certainly were passed at different times. The 13th was declared ratified on December 18, 1865. The 14th was declared ratified on July 28, 1868. The 15th was declared ratified on March 30, 1870. We already know what is desired. There is no rational reason to delay any length of time; the two aims are intimately connected. The concept of corporate personhood produced the abundant evils of political finance excess. "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" Of course, this amendment will change the context. Any new amendment will do that. Acts of Congress should affect and apply to corporations and other organizations. Removing the personhood of corporations would mean the many existing laws would no longer apply to them, which is not what we want. It's just that they shouldn't have the constitutional rights and protections of people (or perhaps just not the protections of speech?) because they can abuse it which is why I used the language I did. However, if corporations and other organizations can still legally be treated as "people" under acts of Congress, we must have specifics in reforming campaign finances written into the Constitution to avoid the possibility of Congress messing everything up. If the LAW, not the constitution, affects corporations through personhood, the law must be changed to adhere to the new reality. It is exactly the impact of `corporate personhood' under the constitution on the law that we are striving to negate and remove. The law is not enacted legislation alone. The law includes all court decisions. There's a ton of work ahead. It has taken a century and a half for this mess to be created. Reversing that long term effort by the oligarchs and elitist Tory types is NOT the work of an amendment. That is only a start to a sweeping reform of law needed to changed the effect of that very long effort to reimpose the tyranny of money over our nation.
I want to note it is very late where I am so if I said any confusing thing, let me know and I'll explain when I'm 100% awake. |
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 3, 2011 1:43:55 GMT -6
Can you explain why it is different?
I was planning to offer a proposal to move Sec 2 of the 28th (as is) to the 29th. Haven't quite gotten around to it yet.
No, my argument was that it'd be much easier to pass Sec 1 of the 28th Amendment as is than try to combine it with campaign finance reform. People will surely agree to our 28th. People may be more divided on the 29th and stuff on campaign finance reform. My goal here is to ensure passage of a corporate amendment, at the very least. Here's another way to look at it from my point of view:
Statement 1 says:
1. Women should be allowed to vote.
Statement 2 says:
1. Women should be allowed to vote.
2. Gay marriage should be legal across the country.
While the vast majority of people will accept Statement 1, there might be reservations about agreeing to Statement 2 because of the additional sentence. This makes it less likely Statement 2 will pass, endangering the first sentence's passage.
The purpose of a constitutional amendment varies depending on who you ask and is up for debate. I'm not concerned with anyone's perception of what the purpose of one is. I'm concerned with addressing the problem of too much money in politics and solving it through whatever means necessary and I'm sure most people here and PAC Leadership feel the same way as is evident by the original amendment on the main site and the vast majority of the revision efforts we've seen thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfpacindiana on Nov 3, 2011 8:15:32 GMT -6
Lam, I was thinking that we should emphisize the point of the words persons, people, and citizens with natural living breathing persons/people/citizens. I was thinking of doing this so that it would be a true absolute for the citizenry of this country and to show that a corporation, pac, or any sort can not contribute to the election campain of anyone running for office.
Your doing a great job, keep it up!
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 3, 2011 23:13:04 GMT -6
One more thing. Is it OK that millionaires will use their own money to get elected a la Bloomberg? Let's think about this... pardon if posted in wrong place. Money does not elect candidates, votes elect candidates. Money is a means to the end of convincing voters to vote the way you wish. However, if you, and/or the ideas you present, suck canal water, you don't get elected no matter how much you spend. I give you Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who lost in the last elections in spite of the fortunes they each spent. Besides, setting law limiting and detailing amounts is the work of the Congress and the people, not the constitution. New York is such a strange city anyway. They pretty much voted against type last time around. Can you explain why it is different? There are all the arguments I presented in my earlier post `Posted by rustyhoundog on Nov 2, 2011, 11:17pm' and here are more. Think about the implications of removing the constitutional protections of the 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments from all non-persons. My imagination is not world class but I can think of some really nasty occurrences happening if any tin pot official is given the right to apply their whims to an enemy's enterprise. Or a judge who sentences any way he wishes. Or a prosecutor who simply rules the law says your enterprise is out side the law. As an entity protected by the constitution your enterprise would still have those protections afforded by the 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments. Removing all protections would create a field day for the dishonest and you would be left helpless, with no protection if the `law' decided to crush your enterprises. I was planning to offer a proposal to move Sec 2 of the 28th (as is) to the 29th. Haven't quite gotten around to it yet. No, my argument was that it'd be much easier to pass Sec 1 of the 28th Amendment as is than try to combine it with campaign finance reform. People will surely agree to our 28th. People may be more divided on the 29th and stuff on campaign finance reform. My goal here is to ensure passage of a corporate amendment, at the very least. Here's another way to look at it from my point of view: Statement 1 says: 1. Women should be allowed to vote. Statement 2 says: 1. Women should be allowed to vote. 2. Gay marriage should be legal across the country. While the vast majority of people will accept Statement 1, there might be reservations about agreeing to Statement 2 because of the additional sentence. This makes it less likely Statement 2 will pass, endangering the first sentence's passage. We are not proposing the vote for women or legal gay marriage. Please stick to the subject and present relevant argument that is connected to the subject discussion. The purpose of a constitutional amendment varies depending on who you ask and is up for debate. I'm not concerned with anyone's perception of what the purpose of one is. I'm concerned with addressing the problem of too much money in politics and solving it through whatever means necessary and I'm sure most people here and PAC Leadership feel the same way as is evident by the original amendment on the main site and the vast majority of the revision efforts we've seen thus far. Which is it? The original amendment tied corporate personhood and political finance reform intimately together. My thought is they should be tied together. Using the recent evils of financial corporations, the ongoing evils from `manufacturing' corporations, the obscene bonuses being paid even now, and the Citizens United decision, a very telling argument can be propounded for the kind of CONSTITUTIONAL wording that relates corporate personhood and corporate political money together. Undue corporate influence is already tied to political money, and trying to separate the two is a HUGE mistake in tactics. If you arbitrarily split the two you lose a tremendously potent argument to make change in political finance and limit the power and influence of corporations on our national life. It is indeed a strange course that would split the already paired evils of corporate influence on our nation and the cause of that influence, `political' money. |
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 4, 2011 0:40:03 GMT -6
Money does not elect candidates, votes elect candidates. Money is a means to the end of convincing voters to vote the way you wish. However, if you, and/or the ideas you present, suck canal water, you don't get elected no matter how much you spend. I give you Mag Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who lost in the last elections in spite of the fortunes they each spent. Recent history seems to disagree with you. www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.htmlThink about the implications of removing the constitutional protections of the 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments from all non-persons. My imagination is not world class but I can think of some really nasty occurrences happening if any tin pot official is given the right to apply their whims to an enemy's enterprise. Or a judge who sentences any way he wishes. Or a prosecutor who simply rules the law says your enterprise is out side the law. As an entity protected by the constitution your enterprise would still have those protections afforded by the 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments. Removing all protections would create a field day for the dishonest and you would be left helpless, with no protection if the `law' decided to crush your enterprises. You already told me what you think would happen if corporations did not have any Constitutional rights. What I asked was what the difference was between removing constitutional rights and removing personhood and how the consequences are different. It's not a rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious because I think it might lead to a better amendment. We are not proposing the vote for women or legal gay marriage. Please stick to the subject and present connected argument. It is connected argument. Look at the context of what I wrote rather than just key words. I was not arguing gay marriage or women's suffrage in a thread dealing with corporate personhood. My point was that by tying a hugely popular amendment with a less popular amendment, you endanger the passage of the popular portions. Which is it? The original amendment tied corporate personhood and political finance reform intimately together. My thought is they should be tied together. Using the recent evils of financial corporations, the obscene bonuses being paid even now, and the Citizens United decision, a very telling argument can be propounded for the kind of CONSTITUTIONAL wording that relates them together. See my argument above. I don't care about tying amendments together because they are closely related in purpose. I care about actually passing the amendments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were closely related, but they were separate amendments for a reason. They dealt with different things. We should have 1 amendment for corporate personhood and 1 for campaign finances, not only because they are 2, while connected, different subjects, but also because tying them together decreases the chance of passage as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 4, 2011 10:36:43 GMT -6
Money does not elect candidates, votes elect candidates. Money is a means to the end of convincing voters to vote the way you wish. However, if you, and/or the ideas you present, suck canal water, you don't get elected no matter how much you spend. I give you Mag Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who lost in the last elections in spite of the fortunes they each spent. Recent history seems to disagree with you. www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.htmlStating the obvious, that Barak Obama was hugely popular even before the campaign began, does not convert spending money on campaigns into actual voting. Hyperbole in discourse does not replace fact or logic. Trying to prove a lie is difficult, and Seth Cline has as much trouble trying that as any other writer. As I said above, Whitman and Fiorina give the lie to the premise that money equals votes. Restricting the field under consideration to the run for presidency does NOT change the fact that money is not equal to vote. You already told me what you think would happen if corporations did not have any Constitutional rights. What I asked was what the difference was between removing constitutional rights and removing personhood and how the consequences are different. It's not a rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious because I think it might lead to a better amendment. Your question: "Can you explain why it is different?" My answer was a detailed exposition of the different results. If you disagree with my logic then restate the question to one you really wish to have answered. I've already answered the one you put. It is connected argument. Look at the context of what I wrote rather than just key words. I was not arguing gay marriage or women's suffrage in a thread dealing with corporate personhood. My point was that by tying a hugely popular amendment with a less popular amendment, you endanger the passage of the popular portions. Actually, you were arguing using gay marriage and women's suffrage as the core of your argument, ignoring the subject of the amendment; removing court imposed personhood and it's effects on political life through the corruption caused by unlimited political money. We have yet to experience an attempt at a gay marriage amendment. Women's suffrage was argued and passed in a different arena than the one we live in. The most potent arguments in that fight were distinctly racist. Which is it? The original amendment tied corporate personhood and political finance reform intimately together. My thought is they should be tied together. Using the recent evils of financial corporations, the obscene bonuses being paid even now, and the Citizens United decision, a very telling argument can be propounded for the kind of CONSTITUTIONAL wording that relates them together. See my argument above. I don't care about tying amendments together because they are closely related in purpose. I care about actually passing the amendments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were closely related, but they were separate amendments for a reason. They dealt with different things. We should have 1 amendment for corporate personhood and 1 for campaign finances, not only because they are 2, while connected, different subjects, but also because tying them together decreases the chance of passage as a whole. Again, you claim, with no historical precedent noted, that the issues need to be split. The issues are intimately tied into such a cause and effect relationship that it would be illogical to separate for the purpose of presenting and passing an amendment. The connection is the best argument to be made. Separating them into two amendments would NOT remove that cause and effect as the most potent argument for passing an amendment removing corporate personhood from constitutional protection. Removing the connection would weaken that argument and still not set a constitutional framework for reforming the uses of money in politics. A single amendment reacting to both the cause and the effect would present the stronger argument for passage, amorphous and unresearched arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. The 14th and 15th amendments were passed in reaction to developments in society that occurred AFTER passage of the 13th amendment, and then the 14th amendment in turn. We are presented in the now with a problem; the fait accompli of corporate personhood and political corruption tied to unlimited corporate political money. We need a single solution for that singular problem. Giving any consideration to vague political fears is not productive of logical answers. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmeow on Nov 4, 2011 18:45:31 GMT -6
John,
I agree with Lam. This needs two amendments to not jeopardize passage of sec 1. And in fact corporations should not be afforded the protection of the 6, 7, 8th amendments or any others. Corp law is well-established and there is no risk of that law drastically changing just because the constitution doesn't protect them. Our country is by and for its people. Corporations are a contrivance of law and and their welfare is not the concern of the constitution.
Regarding the vagaries of your sec 2... consider the case of pacs doing their own direct tv advertising. If your sec 2 is interpreted narrowly to mean that "any political purpose" is candidate's campaign coffers but not pacs and their tv ads, then pacs can still do their TV ads and corps can donate to pacs. Simplicity is a double-edged sword. The problem of explicitness is obsolescence. In the balance lies the solution.
Unfortunately Udall's proposal puts the wolves in charge of the hen house.
Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer.
Barb
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 4, 2011 21:25:44 GMT -6
John, I agree with Lam. This needs two amendments to not jeopardize passage of sec 1. And in fact corporations should not be afforded the protection of the 6, 7, 8th amendments or any others. Corp law is well-established and there is no risk of that law drastically changing just because the constitution doesn't protect them. Our country is by and for its people. Corporations are a contrivance of law and and their welfare is not the concern of the constitution. Barb, The fact that gigantic, conglomerated corporations have been running amok is no reason to damn all corporate entities. Corporate law is a mishmash from 50 states; there are very few federally chartered corporations. No uniform law for corporations exists. There is the US uniform commercial code, but even that has been gutted by corporate lobbying. Simply put, this amendment will establish a concern for corporations and other entities created by law. Think about the damage possible removing all protection from all the associations created by law. That is a scary proposition. Regarding the vagaries of your sec 2... consider the case of pacs doing their own direct tv advertising. If your sec 2 is interpreted narrowly to mean that "any political purpose" is candidate's campaign coffers but not pacs and their tv ads, then pacs can still do their TV ads and corps can donate to pacs. Simplicity is a double-edged sword. The problem of explicitness is obsolescence. In the balance lies the solution. PACs, and all other political action associations, will be prohibited from operating. Period! It is the time for people to resume an active political life if they wish to influence the direction of this nation. There can be NO question that a Political Action Committee (PAC) is political. Please read again the entire Section 2. as I have written it; there is no mistaking the absolute prohibitions contained in that section. Even so, there is still plenty of room for congress and the states to write enabling legislation to control money in politics. Unfortunately Udall's proposal puts the wolves in charge of the hen house. Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer. Barb I also am no lawyer. Udall, however, is a lawyer, first and foremost. |
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 5, 2011 21:44:13 GMT -6
Stating the obvious, that Barak Obama was hugely popular even before the campaign began, does not convert spending money on campaigns into actual voting. Hyperbole in discourse does not replace fact or logic. Trying to prove a lie is difficult, and Seth Cline has as much trouble trying that as any other writer. As I said above, Whitman and Fiorina give the lie to the premise that money equals votes. Restricting the field under consideration to the run for presidency does NOT change the fact that money is not equal to vote. My point wasn't that money translates directly into votes, it was that money has a huge impact on how people vote. If you disagree with that statement, then why would you support a group that aims to cut corporate expenditures in elections and influencing legislation? Your question: "Can you explain why it is different?" My answer was a detailed exposition of the different results. If you disagree with my logic then restate the question to one you really wish to have answered. I've already answered the one you put. I asked what was the difference between removing Constitutional rights and revoking personhood. When you're asked to compare 2 things, you give details on both of those 2 things and point out the differences. I want you to tell me what removing Constitutional rights would do/doesn't do that revoking corporate personhood wouldn't do/does. Actually, you were arguing using gay marriage and women's suffrage as the core of your argument, ignoring the subject of the amendment I was not. I was using their respective support among the public. Since using real world examples in my argument will not work for you, let me make it more abstract. Bill 1: 1. Policy that nearly everyone supports. Bill 2: 1. Policy that nearly everyone supports. 2. Policy that divides people. Bill 1 is virtually guaranteed to pass. Bill 2 has a lower chance of passage. It is the time for people to resume an active political life if they wish to influence the direction of this nation. We have to be realistic. Don't write amendments and legislation based on some ideal world where citizens have an active political life. Splitting them won't weaken any argument. The 2 issues both serve to work towards a common goal. Did splitting a bill of rights into 12 amendments weaken the perception of its necessity? 2 of those amendments were unable to pass. Should all 12 amendments been forged into 1, the 2 unpopular provisions would have decreased support for the whole bill of rights, if not endangered or prevented the bill's ultimate passage. The fears are not vague, they are clear. A less popular provision may endanger the passage of the hugely popular one. And such fear is productive. It allows us to prepare for bad-case scenarios, such as a lack of support for a campaign finance provision. |
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 6, 2011 16:29:10 GMT -6
Lam,
I cannot answer your last message in detail; "quote" does not quote the original in it's entirety. It catches only one of my original quotes. Answering the rest of the parts will make no sense at all.
Why does the quote function not work consistently?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 6, 2011 17:53:53 GMT -6
I quoted parts and responded to parts. That's what you've been doing. The last 2 quotes I just added manually after I made the post because I forgot to address some things, which is why your name doesn't show up. I don't understand your question.
|
|
