Post by rustyhoundog on Dec 5, 2011 12:30:18 GMT -6
A Proposed EDIT of Amendment XXVIII (Official)
This is a fitting edit of the wording presented as the (Official) version. It aims to limit corruption from our political processes and correct the excesses of corporations while leaving open the legislation of change.
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.
Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.
I would like to make some logical points about what this edit does.
Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.
The first phrase covers the legalistic bases. It puts absolute conditions on court opinions possible if legitimate decisions concerning the subject matter of this amendment are to be made using any part of the constitution.
The second phrase is an absolute; an outright declaration that no new, artificial person exists when the power of law associates people into any sort of entity. That means no corporation is a person. That means the right to political speech using the first amendment does not inhere to corporations.
The third phrase reinforces the first and second phrase with absolute clarity and force.
Using the plural in Section 1. precludes games around complex legal structures.
I do believe that covers all those Citizens United bases. Any legal eagles out there are welcome to point out my errors in thinking. Just as the 14th negated the `3/5ths' rule, this will remove the corporate entity as person, free to engage as a natural person under the constitution.
Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.
Using `citizen' in Section 2. will encourage foreign guests wishing participation in our political life to become naturalized citizens. Otherwise, we do not need their interference in our politics.
The first three phrases may be looked at, separately and together, as the knife separating all legal entities not persons and all non-citizens from any open political contribution to our national life. That means political support will return to the duties of the individual citizen. If we wish to restrict amounts, that is properly the purview of legislation, not the constitution.
There will always be the dishonest, trying secretly to influence our national politics. Like the poor, they are always with us. The secretly dishonest are properly the purview of law enforcement, not the constitution. As long as we restrict open contributions to citizens and legislate against secret contributions we will have done what humans can.
The second sentence is a sunshine mandate. Just like sunshine drives out the bugs and kills off the germs, openness will put an extreme brake on the corruption caused by secrecy in political contributions.
Openness will redefine our politics of support and reveal information we need to make informed choices, like instituting a recall if necessary.
So, why the choice of `to any political purpose?' The amendment restricts the action of contributing from all that are not individual citizens. It leaves wide open the definition of political purpose. It also places NO restrictions on citizens as political contributors. The word `any' controls the phrase `political purpose,' which is left undefined. The job of defining political purpose is properly the work of the people, not the constitution. In not defining what is included as political purpose, it leaves the subject open. In specifying `any' we remove the possibility of inequitable law being constitutional.
We get nothing from restricting politics by a definition in the constitution. Let the people argue out what to include in politics as we change from time to time.
The people have attempted, many times, to control political contributions through legislation, only to be thwarted by judges. We must control political contributions. This version makes it possible for us to legally restrict judges from making things like Citizens United decisions.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.
There's a ton of law that must be removed, changed, or enacted when this 28th amendment is adopted as part of the constitution. Section 3. worked for other amendments, it should also work for Amendment XXVIII.
No other elaboration is needed. Our representative form of government works when we pay proper attention to our natural duties of citizenship. That is the heart of our system, paying proper attention as citizens. The individual citizen duty of supporting our political system is a return to first principles.
Do you see my thought on using the words I placed in my proposal?
Be assured, most people want good in their lives, be that material comfort or spiritual peace. There's nothing like an honest society to bring peace of mind.A good life and an easy mind go far to making peace of soul not only possible, but a rewarding pursuit.
Not quite up to The Federalist Papers, but all that work does not need repeated.
This is a fitting edit of the wording presented as the (Official) version. It aims to limit corruption from our political processes and correct the excesses of corporations while leaving open the legislation of change.
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.
Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.
I would like to make some logical points about what this edit does.
Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.
The first phrase covers the legalistic bases. It puts absolute conditions on court opinions possible if legitimate decisions concerning the subject matter of this amendment are to be made using any part of the constitution.
The second phrase is an absolute; an outright declaration that no new, artificial person exists when the power of law associates people into any sort of entity. That means no corporation is a person. That means the right to political speech using the first amendment does not inhere to corporations.
The third phrase reinforces the first and second phrase with absolute clarity and force.
Using the plural in Section 1. precludes games around complex legal structures.
I do believe that covers all those Citizens United bases. Any legal eagles out there are welcome to point out my errors in thinking. Just as the 14th negated the `3/5ths' rule, this will remove the corporate entity as person, free to engage as a natural person under the constitution.
Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.
Using `citizen' in Section 2. will encourage foreign guests wishing participation in our political life to become naturalized citizens. Otherwise, we do not need their interference in our politics.
The first three phrases may be looked at, separately and together, as the knife separating all legal entities not persons and all non-citizens from any open political contribution to our national life. That means political support will return to the duties of the individual citizen. If we wish to restrict amounts, that is properly the purview of legislation, not the constitution.
There will always be the dishonest, trying secretly to influence our national politics. Like the poor, they are always with us. The secretly dishonest are properly the purview of law enforcement, not the constitution. As long as we restrict open contributions to citizens and legislate against secret contributions we will have done what humans can.
The second sentence is a sunshine mandate. Just like sunshine drives out the bugs and kills off the germs, openness will put an extreme brake on the corruption caused by secrecy in political contributions.
Openness will redefine our politics of support and reveal information we need to make informed choices, like instituting a recall if necessary.
So, why the choice of `to any political purpose?' The amendment restricts the action of contributing from all that are not individual citizens. It leaves wide open the definition of political purpose. It also places NO restrictions on citizens as political contributors. The word `any' controls the phrase `political purpose,' which is left undefined. The job of defining political purpose is properly the work of the people, not the constitution. In not defining what is included as political purpose, it leaves the subject open. In specifying `any' we remove the possibility of inequitable law being constitutional.
We get nothing from restricting politics by a definition in the constitution. Let the people argue out what to include in politics as we change from time to time.
The people have attempted, many times, to control political contributions through legislation, only to be thwarted by judges. We must control political contributions. This version makes it possible for us to legally restrict judges from making things like Citizens United decisions.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.
There's a ton of law that must be removed, changed, or enacted when this 28th amendment is adopted as part of the constitution. Section 3. worked for other amendments, it should also work for Amendment XXVIII.
No other elaboration is needed. Our representative form of government works when we pay proper attention to our natural duties of citizenship. That is the heart of our system, paying proper attention as citizens. The individual citizen duty of supporting our political system is a return to first principles.
Do you see my thought on using the words I placed in my proposal?
Be assured, most people want good in their lives, be that material comfort or spiritual peace. There's nothing like an honest society to bring peace of mind.A good life and an easy mind go far to making peace of soul not only possible, but a rewarding pursuit.
Not quite up to The Federalist Papers, but all that work does not need repeated.
