|
Post by Lam on Oct 27, 2011 17:06:04 GMT -6
28th Amendment (Corporations are not people) Sec 1. Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to candidates for public office, or to organizations engaged in influencing the outcome of an election or legislation, are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Oct 27, 2011 17:46:59 GMT -6
Hi Lam - thanks for creating the new forum
Let's try out your formulation on Sec 1, mine on Sec 2, ditch Sec 3, and, since there is nothing to enforce, Sec 4. As in
Sec 1; 28th: Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to candidates for public office, or to organizations engaged in influencing the outcome of an election, are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution.
And that is that.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Oct 27, 2011 17:59:14 GMT -6
28th Amendment
(Corporations are not people) Sec 1. Corporations and other entities created by operation of law are not persons and have all and only those rights created by law. Partnerships and other organizations that act as a mere extension of natural persons shall have the rights of natural persons only when comprised entirely of natural persons and acting with their unanimous consent. Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to or in support of candidates for public office and associated organizations in any form are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution. Sec 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to deny the rights and protections afforded to any and all legal entities under the 4th Amendment of the U.S constitution; as well as the rights or obligations of any entity to sue and be sued, or to buy, sell, own or dispose of property, to be taxed or nullify the rights pertaining to a free and open press. Sec 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Sec 1. is far too wordy and negates the need for your Sec. 4. However it makes a special class of citizen; those in partnerships. We lose one class of dominance to replace it with another. Very bad! Let the partners do their own individual citizen thing. I'm certain I do NOT want a single-citizen-multi-foreigner partnership financing their choice of domestic politics. DUH! Sec 2. is confusing for me; exactly what does "not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution" mean in a constitutional setting and why is that wording necessary? Sec 3. is entirely superfluous to the main thrust, as well as being exceptionally sleep inducing. What the heck does all that talk about rights and obligations, buy, sell, own, dispose of, betaxed, and there is ZERO need to protect the first amendment rights of free speech. Newspaper corporations are not protected by any sort of personhood. Newspapers are protected by the first amendment. There is ample law covering that fact.
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Oct 27, 2011 18:27:16 GMT -6
Rusty - check out my 1st mod and see how you like it.
Sec 2 is necessary to prevent donating money from being equated with protected political speech. That's part of what got us where we are. If donating money is constitutionally protected, then it is very hard to restrict it enough to level the electoral playing field. Millionaires and corporations have a huge advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Oct 27, 2011 18:55:35 GMT -6
Alrighty dudes. I think all the changes permitted by the motions process on the wolfpac site have been made.
If so, from this point on, the new convention process will be in effect.
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 27, 2011 22:32:52 GMT -6
Lookin good.
I think Sec 2 might be the subject of another Amendment, though.
Could we float that as a separate proposal?
I think the second section of the 28th (If we *had* to lump something else in) should address the controlled granting of charters. It would be more productive, pertinent, and saleable.
Sec 2. Congress shall have the sole authority to grant corporate charters and regulate their terms and conditions.
I still think election reform is a whole different can of worms and should be treated legislatively AFTER the personhood issue is resolved. Everyone wants election reform but it won't have teeth without defining personhood first. Can we get a broader discussion on this? Reforming a 200 year old culture could get pretty complicated. I wouldn't start down that road without a map to show the end. And I love a happy ending;>)
Marketing and strategy should be a central issue of these discussions; not just legalities.
I'm also bothered by a general lack of humor around here. What: there's no fun in rioting and general mayhem? Loosen up, its just a country. There'll be more.
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 28, 2011 14:58:58 GMT -6
I think it's important to consider over-all strategy when setting out to remove money from the electoral process. I realize Cenk wants to revoke personhood *and* reform campaign finance; they're both critical to restoring citizen sovereignty. I doubt it can be done simultaneously but I know it can be done sequentially.
The problems I see with an Amendment proposal featuring both concepts simultaneously is that the human mind can't absorb that much philosophy in one sitting. We must remember that whatever we propose here will be turned into both FOX and MSNBC talking points in the most distorted light possible; and they're really good at it. Therefore brevity and simplicity are critical to achieving universal approval. It's going to be hard enough to pass one concept through a ratification process much less two; though we know they're both related.
Election reform has already been legislated several times but corporate money always finds a way to work around it because the Constitution gives them Rights. For that reason I think it is critical to remove those Constitutional Rights before attempting to keep them out of the electoral process. Furthermore, it is quite possible and maybe probable, that electoral reform could be accomplished legislatively once the "tap-root" of corporate power, personhood, is uprooted. Canceling corporate personhood constitutionally not only exposes them to government prosecution, it exposes them to the imposition of terms and conditions on their charters. The People could then define how corporations would participate in politics, if at all. Media corporations would thus have their roles defined differently than political campaign corporations such as Democratic Corp., Republican Corp. or Libertarian Corp. Others, like GE, JPMorgan, Federal Reserve, SEIU, ACLU, etc would be prohibited from interfering in *any* way with the conduct of government, including lobbying. Corporate charters could henceforth be written to automatically dissolve a corporation when it became Too Big To Fail, for instance. If we put as much thought into the writing of corporate charters as we did in writing the Constitution, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have today. We could turn our attention to important issues like peak oil and over-population.
But it all starts with the simple act of restoring sovereignty to the US government. Having restored sovereignty to the US government it becomes a smaller struggle to restore sovereignty to The People that live here. The key, the linchpin, the tap root of corporate hegemony lies in its power to use the Constitution against us. Ask any prosecutor how hard it is to bring corporate criminals to justice. (I wish a state or federal prosecutor would stick their necks out and post on this forum; we need your input badly.)
OWS now has the world's attention. Our message will be known by all. The simpler we keep it the more likely the world will understand it. The more words we pile on that message, the harder it becomes to understand, the less likely the critical mass we need is going to get behind it.
Do FOX or MSNBC want to argue that corporations are people, too? They've shown a willingness to argue everything else, but even corporate shills know better than to argue that point. (Except Mitt, of course)
Electoral reform will be a natural by-product of de-personalization anyway; why push it now?
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Oct 28, 2011 15:07:48 GMT -6
Obviously, our main message should be the short and concise 28th Amendment. It's first section can fit on a t-shirt and be legibly read. It is a line that can easily make its way through the nation.
And it's as you (or someone) said, every man, woman, child, shapeshifter will agree to the first section because it should be a self-evident and obvious truth. Campaign finance reform will be a main project as well, but probably not part of any PR campaign. It's longer. But with that said, we should continue to work on the 29th because it's vital as well. It's just a bit harder to sell.
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 15:16:12 GMT -6
I’m disappointed with Cenk. He should know the ramifications of this. Dear Cenk: What about bundling? Don’t you know the Barack Obama Campaign is the King of Bundlers? This does nothing about bundling. www.occupy-delaware.com This is a HUGE mistake! When you do this, you’ll be opening the biggest can of worms you’ll never survive. That Amend. will be fingerfucked to no end by both parties………..you’ll get an amendment you wish you never had! Political experience teaches us this. www.occupationamerica.comwww.progressivepeoplepower.com
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 28, 2011 15:22:06 GMT -6
BINGO ! Yeah; two proposed amendments. The 28th just as you put it (no more): Sec.1. Only natural persons...........etc. PERIOD. That is SO powerful !
and a 29th as concise and clearly worded as possible.( Sec. 29 Corporations shall hereby keep their damned opinions to themselves:>)
I like the T-shirt idea. Say it all in one breath. Easy to remember, too. This way if the headwind gets too strong on 29, we'll still have 28 (and that, in itself, will get the same result as 29)
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 15:26:52 GMT -6
Look, there is no getting around it: We The People must form a Consensus Platform and run Consensus Candidates for office, to defeat the bi-partisan crimewave in Washington, a.k.a. Republicans and Democrats.
I believe we can do it. I believe we can overcome the adversity.
If you don't think that We The People can form a Consensus Platform and run Consensus candidates, then you have no lawful recourse against the bi-partisan crimewave in Washington. Go refresh the Liberty Tree if you believe our system is too broken to overcome the obstacles. I don't believe it is too broken to overcome the obstacles.
Mark my words, political experience teaches this is the only way to "Save America" from the bi-partisan crimewave in Washington who represents special interests and corporations over you and me. ron@occupationamerica.com
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 15:32:05 GMT -6
I hate to break up the party, but uh.....you may want to think about this:Barack Obama (D) Bundlers Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle." Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, with Obama and McCain posting bundlers by ranges, indicated in this chart with the "max" and "min" columns, and with the top ranges being simply "$500,000 or more." Together, 536 elites have directed at least $75,750,000 to McCain, and 560 have gathered at least $76,500,000 for Obama. www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638
|
|
Lam
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Lam on Oct 28, 2011 15:35:55 GMT -6
Well, occupationamerica, we won't have to deal with the bought congresspeople in the national Congress because we plan to push this through using state legislatures. Although, this will be hard too. As soon as the major lobbiers of congress find out about this plan, I'm sure they'll lobby the fuck out of every state congressperson.
We should have a plan to deal with that too. The only reason congresspeople submit to the will of their donors is because they support their campaigns and help them get (re)elected. The only thing that has more influence than money are the votes themselves. We must pass on our message to as many people as possible and get them to vote against anyone who will not support this Convention.
And aren't people to contribute to bundlers as well as the bundler subject to present donation limits? If people pool their money into the bundler, under our 29th amendment, the bundler can only give about $116. Can you elaborate on the problem here?
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 16:02:32 GMT -6
Look, I'm not trying to disrespect you. I applaud your fine work and sincere earnest desire to effect change. Is there anyone who has political campaign experience advising Cenk about this? It doesn't seem like it. For example, Cenk made this proposal and you're making this blog and don't understand the reality of bundling. Even worse is, you must not believe corruption on the state level doesn't exist. I have much experience and I can categorically tell you that this will fail miserably, precisely because of corruption and influence Congress has on state officials. Where do you think U.S. Congressmen and women come from? Mars? No, they are the product of states. There state connections got them where the are today.
There is NO SUBSTITUTE for building an online Consensus Platform and runnig Consensus Candidates and defeating the bi-partisan crimewave in Washington. There are no shortcuts, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 16:07:05 GMT -6
Please read up on bundling tactics........please go talk to some experienced campaign guys about bundling.
Go tell Cenk: Hey, this stupid guy keeps buggin' me about bundling? What say you?
|
|