Amendment 28-- 3rd proposed revision

[tessab]

If you're interested in my take on re-hashing Cenk's original text of the Amendment, keep reading. If you're just interested in the text of what I want to propose for the 28th Amendment, just skip down to the text in bold.

Most of this has been discussed on WolfPAC boards before, but I think it's worth saying again for those just tuning in to this forum. I think most people support Cenk's ultimate goal of getting the money out of politics by revoking corporate personhood and enacting campaign finance reform. His proposed text for the 28th Amendment is very eloquent, but many people here in the WolfPAC forums have foreseen crucial problems in building support for it. Aspects of his text will be extremely problematic to defend against right wing attacks. It will be very difficult to present this to the State legislators without working out inconsistencies and developing adequate defense strategies in regard to the legal substance of our demands.

In my mind, the dialogue on redrafting has three purposes: to identify potential problems, to build a consensus within the movement on rectifying those problems, and to present strategies from that consensus to the leadership of WolfPAC for consideration. Cenk's original text is in italics. Following it is a brief argument of vulnerabilities that prompted the creation of this forum.

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

1) The 28th Amendment tries to do at least five things: divest Corporations of personhood (sentence 1), divest corporations of all Constitutional rights (sentence 2), divest Corporations of the ability to participate in elections (sentence 3), set up serious campaign finance reform (sentence 4), set up publicly financed (taxpayer financed?) elections.

2) Divesting corporations of ALL constitutional rights is going to be a non-starter in any state. Without any constitutional protection for the machinery of modern commerce, chaos ensues. What we are most interested in is how money is equated with speech, and how corporations and other entities abuse both money and speech to unduly influence elections.

3) The first thing we must do after divesting corporations of their personhood is to untangle money from speech. If we can't do this, we run afoul of the First Amendment and we can do little or nothing in regards to campaign finance reform.

4) Sentence 3 will get ambivalent support at best, but it's worth a shot. If we're going to sell that, we're going to have to hammer very hard on what specifically makes corporations a special class different from lobbyists, PACS, or any other legal way of structuring an organization or a business.

5) There is a serious danger of putting all the eggs in one basket and losing everything. Any one of these topics is in-and-of-itself an uphill fight. We are most vulnerable on the particulars of campaign finance reform. Vagaries of finance are harder for people to understand than the firm talking point that "corporations are not people." I anticipate these particulars will be attacked the hardest, with every trick in the book. Thus the idea of splitting Cenk's goals into two telescoping Amendments. Amendment 28 addresses corporate personhood and corporate rights, and Amendment 29 addresses elections and campaign finance reform. If we lose Amendment 29, we still have Amendment 28. I am confident we can make non-passage of Amendment 28 equivalent to political suicide. The language of Amendment 28 must leave the door open for us to try again if we lose campaign finance reform.

6) Taxpayer-funded elections is really a different topic than mere campaign finance reform. In light of the current system, it is really a revolution rather than a reform. Setting up an undefined, two-word mandate for this in the Constitution may create serious problems, and leave us with a worse system than what we have.

That doesn't include every argument about difficulties and vulnerabilities, but it generally sums them up.

I am also of the opinion that we need to do more to recognize the Founding Fathers' existing Constitutional precedents on preventing inappropriate influences and the erosion of the rights of the people from taking root. We find these ideas in the following parts of the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The extraordinary power (without concomitant liability or responsibility) awarded to to corporations by considering them as people lets them do just that through their power to unduly influence elections. Their right to free speech trumps those of natural people, and their ability to influence elections is steadily eroding all other rights held by the people. We must use caution however, in not running afoul of the Ninth when we construct our arguments for the 28th and 29th Amendments.

Article 1, Section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. It's pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers did not want foreign or undue influences on our internal affairs. In many ways, a multinational corporation
could be considered an agent for the interests of a foreign state. Furthermore, corporations in the modern world possess power, wealth, and influence that was once only wielded by kings, princes, and foreign states. I believe our Founding Fathers, could they have foreseen the massive influence that corporations would possess, would have tried to put some curbs on them.

I have found everyone else's work on re-drafting the Amendments thoroughly engaging and thought-provoking. Getting a Constitutional Convention will be no easy task and the work we are doing here with WolfPAC is vital to the future of our nation. Each one of you who has debated revisions to the Amendment has had a part in this. Without further ado, I will present those thoughts which I have distilled from all of your hard work. I look forward to your reactions.


Amendment 28 (Corporate Personhood & Corporate Rights)(***please note that I feel most campaign finance considerations should take place in Amendment 29)

Sec. 1 Only human beings shall be considered "people" or "persons" under the US Constitution, and only human beings shall be endowed with the full magnitude of rights guaranteed within. Other entities, such as entities of commerce, are figurative persons whose constitutional rights, especially in regard to free speech, do not equal, nor shall supersede or disparage, those of natural persons.

Sec. 2 Public officials and candidates for public office may not accept financial contributions originating from foreign persons, foreign entities, or foreign powers during any tenure in office or in any campaign for public office.

Sec. 3 Speech by way of financial contribution to campaigns for public office, while recognized as a protected and beneficial class of speech, nonetheless also constitutes a special class of commerce, and as such it is not equal to the action of a free press, to the free establishment of religion, or to a petition by the people to government for a redress of grievances.

Sec. 4 In no way shall any speech by way of financial contribution to campaigns for public office be concealed from the public in either origins or amounts. No person or entity shall be empowered to present financial contributions from diverse sources in its own name without also making a record of each donation, and the sum of each donation, available to the public.

Sec. 5 Any speech by way of financial contribution to a campaign for political office, which is done by persons or entities engaged in interstate commerce, is subject to oversight by Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.



-------------------------------------

Section 1, in the spirit of the Ninth Amendment, divests corporations of their personhood and recognizes that the inordinate power corporations have, coupled with the magnitude of the rights that they currently have, is what's causing the problems.

Section 2 carries on the spirit of Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Multinational corporations: get out of our elections, and stay out. Bundlers: beware!

Sections 3 through 5 untangle money from speech by treating political contributions as commerce. Section 4 demands transparency, and Section 5 puts the fundraising activities of national political organizations firmly under the oversight of Congress.

[rustyhoundog]

The constitution is an example of simple frameworks for building a system of government. Details which restrict the future, such as detailed directions and definitions, are present only in Amendment XII, as far as I can tell.

Reacting in detail to past court actions which will be moot after a simple amendment becomes part of the frame for making law is a mistake.

The more detail there is in the constitution the more chance there is for weasels to work there weasel words of distortion.

I think this is an appropriate amendment to remove much corruption from our political processes and correct the excesses of corporations.

[http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=9]

===================================================

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons.
Section 2. No entity or person, other than a citizen, shall be allowed to 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.

===================================================

Using the plural in Section 1. precludes games around complex legal structures.

Using 'entity' in Section 2. precludes any form of association from making contributions, or payments.

Using `citizen' in Section 2. is a blanket removal of foreign money and speech, etc., from our politics and will encourage foreign guests wishing participation in our political life to become naturalized citizens.

The absolute direction for openness will redefine our politics of support and reveal information we need to make informed choices or to institute a recall if necessary.

Use of the phrase `to any political purpose' is deliberate.

There's a ton of law that must be removed and/or changed to free our nation of the shackles of money in politics. Section 3. worked for other amendments, it should also work for Amendment XXVIII.

No other elaboration is needed. Our republican form of government works when we pay proper attention to our duties of citizenship. That is the heart of our system, paying proper attention to our duties as citizens.

[tessab]

I think the real problem that I have is with Section 2 of your proposal: what is defined as a political purpose? Also "contribute" is too vague of a word. It can mean ANY kind of material support. And your emphasis on citizens can also be problematic in light of this. It's like saying that non-citizens can't write to a newspaper, buy a politically oriented publication, or even rally for immigrant rights. The Hispanic lobby, really any immigrant lobby, is going to make your proposal positively radioactive, based on these objections. Even liberals won't touch it if it goes mainstream. I am willing to bet money on it. All my other objections to what you are trying to say pretty much flow from Section 2 as well, for various other reasons.

You have not really done anything to untangle money from speech. What you have done is unintentionally endanger freedom of assembly, effectively enshrining Patriot-Act-style bullshit in our Constitution. Instead of defining purposes and who can give, you should define a new class of speech. It's much easier to police the people who take the money, than trying to police the people who give the money, and thus, all of society.

Giving money to political candidates is not purely speech. Everybody knows it. It's the same thing as traveling clergy living off donations, or entertainers living off tips. You could say that you express solidarity for a religion by giving money to the clergy, or that you support the message of an entertainer by putting money in their hat. Clergy members and entertainers still have to file tax returns. So what does that tell you about giving money to politicians? It is a form of income, and thus commerce, and should be treated as such by Congress, in accordance with the 16th Amendment and Article 1, section 8.

Oh, and what happens when the clergy come out for political causes, as they do all the time? Has the Southern Baptist Convention never endorsed a candidate? Remember the conjoined twins I mentioned earlier? Again, the right-wing paranoia machine in the South will eat your current proposal alive. What you propose will instantly be labeled anti-Christian and it will go down in flames. In the South, any politician perceived at any time as anti-Christian has signed his political death warrant. Southern legislatures will not touch your proposal in its current form.

Nor have you addressed effectively the 9th amendment issue. It's one thing to say that entities are not persons. It is inevitable that someone will ask, well, what are they then, and what do they get to do? What state legislator is going to stick his neck out in the face of that kind of uncertainty? In this economy, fear of economic uncertainty is a severe motivating factor. Your proposal may be defeated because of its very vagueness.

My version may be wordier, and we can work on that, but it is absolutely essential to our cause to cut the gordian knot that has been tied up with money and speech. If we don't do that, all we really do is divest corporations of personhood. We won't be able to do anything else that Cenk wants to do, and we open ourselves up even farther to clawback, and what one contributor colorfully described as "finger****ing."

It is very important to not only divest corporations of personhood, but to also guarantee that corporations will have some, but inferior, rights to human beings, that apply nationally, especially in regards to free speech. Like it or not, corporatists are a force to be dealt with, and they must be assuaged that we do not support dispossessing them in a Cuba-style nationalization of industry.

I am willing now, to revise Section 1, and it appears below in bold. I included some of your text because in some regards, it is more succinct. "Figurative persons" opens up too much, I suspect. The other articles, I'll leave for another post, because this one is already long.

Only human beings shall be considered "people" or "persons" under the US Constitution, and only human beings shall be endowed with the full magnitude of rights guaranteed within. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and their rights, especially in regard to free speech, do not equal, nor shall disparage, those of natural persons.

I might add that what we are doing is pretty groundbreaking. It is very important that we don't present ourselves as a bunch of marxist extremists. While we recognize that we have a problem in terms of corruption, we need to be very clear that we love the Constitution, we love the law of this land, we respect the intent of the Founding Fathers, and most importantly, we actually have a Constitutional leg to stand on when we propose certain things. At all costs, we can never sound like a fringe group trying to inject arbitrary things into the Constitution. We will never get the support we need that way.

I guess I might need to state a condensed version of my problems with your proposal over there on the other thread where it is, for the benefit of the viewing public. I respect the need for brevity, I can see what you are trying to do, but I feel it does too little of some things and a couple of things I can't go along with. I want people to read my thoughts on this thread and then come up with something superior to what both of us propose. Let's promote hybrid vigor and hope that the next proposal advances WolfPAC even further.

[rustyhoundog]

Tessa,

Please visit the newly revised version at:

[http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=9]

I've strengthened the ban on corporate personhood, and the ban on non people and non citizens from contributing. It's up to us, through our legislators, to set limits on amounts and substance of contributions.

Yes, wordy leaves room for weasel work, but simplicity needs some elaboration. Good conversation is the answer, good being nothing nasty.

Here's the substance.

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 persons 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.

Please, I can not emphasize enough the effectiveness of light on the subject of political contributions. Our entire electorate would have to be perverted for crooks to get away with their corruption under the spotlight of public disclosure.

There are still a majority of people who strive for the good, not the least of which are reporters.

[tessab]

I apologize if you think that I'm nasty, but I took your proposal point by point and presented arguments. You're not debating me, you're just calling me a nasty person, and you just keep repeating yourself. The only thing that sells your argument is the idea of "brevity" and a distaste for "weasel words" and I see no ideas legally or constitutionally at all to support what you want.

I never said that I was perfect or that I was 100% right. However, I'm getting the idea you seem to feel that way about your proposal. If you think I'm wrong, take me point for point. I'm not an unreasonable person. Convince me your way is better. Convince me your ideas are better. Convince me of how much thought you've put into this. Convince me you're not out to save the world in a week. Convince me that you guys have a shot at winning over Cenk, let alone a legislature.

I haven't said anything that won't be said again by someone else. If you can't bring anything more than an ad hominem argument, if you can't win me over, and instead resort to shouting me down, you're going to have a hell of time with the people who are smarter than me. You know, the people with the power to shout you down. The folks you're going to come up against are a lot tougher than me. If your ego is this easily bruised, you're not ready to fight, are you?

I'd like to point out that our electorate has been pretty badly distorted, by various devices such as gerrymandering, just to permit the things that have already happened. If Congress is so trustworthy, why do they need campaign finance reform that's the equivalent of saying: "We're taking away your allowance!" If the media was going to save us, why weren't they turning the screws on G.W. Bush? Where were they when all this corruption went through in the first place? We didn't hear much about it until it was a life-threatening issue for democracy itself.

The most powerful point I want to make is this: the strength of the movement lies in the perception that it's a credible threat. If it's all perceived as a media publicity stunt or some sort of liberal/libertarian diatribe that is in no way mainstream, it is no longer a credible threat. End of story. Convince me you are a credible threat.

[rustyhoundog]

Oct 31, 2011 4:30:49 GMT -6 tessab said:

I apologize if you think that I'm nasty, but I took your proposal point by point and presented arguments. You're not debating me, you're just calling me a nasty person, and you just keep repeating yourself. The only thing that sells your argument is the idea of "brevity" and a distaste for "weasel words" and I see no ideas legally or constitutionally at all to support what you want.

I do not think you are nasty. I was making a simple, general observation for the need for civility in conversation. Please accept my apology for not being clearer.

When writing a new concept into any legal framework there is no need for legal or constitutional precedent; this is not a case being presented in a court. What precedent can there be for reversing 15 decades of distortion applied by courts and compliant politicians? There is exactly none, so I do not depend on any precedent other than our Declaration of Independence, which seems to have been overlooked in the constitution we now have as a framework of law to set equality.

Oct 31, 2011 4:30:49 GMT -6 tessab said:

I never said that I was perfect or that I was 100% right. However, I'm getting the idea you seem to feel that way about your proposal. If you think I'm wrong, take me point for point. I'm not an unreasonable person. Convince me your way is better. Convince me your ideas are better. Convince me of how much thought you've put into this. Convince me you're not out to save the world in a week. Convince me that you guys have a shot at winning over Cenk, let alone a legislature.

Well, if you didn't think your ideas were better you would not be engaged in dialog supporting them. Please, allow me the same grace I allow you and accept the idea I also think my ideas are better.

If the range of change I've introduced into the sections of my proposal since I first made that proposal does not convince you I have been thinking about the effects and implications of the words I am using then nothing else I do will convince you that I am thinking about the problems of corporate dominance in our society, the extent of the damage done by continued business as usual in that state of submission to their whims, and the overwhelming need for reform to the law that allows that damage done by `persons' that are simple pieces of paper.

I admit, I would love to save the world in a week. Reality tells me I wont even survive to an age when corporations will no longer be the dominant forces in our polity. That does not daunt my zeal to aid in the change toward real freedom.

Actually, I do not depend on Cenk or any other `leader' for this aim to be accomplished. The only force capable of that work is the people. My words are for everyone, not just Cenk or any other `leader' that might arise.

Oct 31, 2011 4:30:49 GMT -6 tessab said:

I haven't said anything that won't be said again by someone else. If you can't bring anything more than an ad hominem argument, if you can't win me over, and instead resort to shouting me down, you're going to have a hell of time with the people who are smarter than me. You know, the people with the power to shout you down. The folks you're going to come up against are a lot tougher than me. If your ego is this easily bruised, you're not ready to fight, are you?

My aim is NOT to fight but to convince. Cooperation is not a sentiment, it is an economic necessity. That idea is not new at all, it's a quote from the past, and the way all real change has occurred in societies. All the people must cooperate in making and acquiescing to change.

Oct 31, 2011 4:30:49 GMT -6 tessab said:

I'd like to point out that our electorate has been pretty badly distorted, by various devices such as gerrymandering, just to permit the things that have already happened. If Congress is so trustworthy, why do they need campaign finance reform that's the equivalent of saying: "We're taking away your allowance!" If the media was going to save us, why weren't they turning the screws on G.W. Bush? Where were they when all this corruption went through in the first place? We didn't hear much about it until it was a life-threatening issue for democracy itself.

The `media' is controlled by corporations who are well aware of the threat presented in a united people, and they will stifle any information about cooperation by presenting lies, distortions and half truths.

Individual reporters are not the media. Independent publishers are not the media. The spirit of freedom still lives among the vast majority of people, in spite of the `53%' who are greatly confused between their carnal desires and their spiritual needs. I do not wait for permission to object to deception and oppression from the media.

Oct 31, 2011 4:30:49 GMT -6 tessab said:

The most powerful point I want to make is this: the strength of the movement lies in the perception that it's a credible threat. If it's all perceived as a media publicity stunt or some sort of liberal/libertarian diatribe that is in no way mainstream, it is no longer a credible threat. End of story. Convince me you are a credible threat.

Any time as little as 10% of the people decide a change is needed a credible threat to the status quo is real. If it gets as large as 15% or 20% a revolutionary change is imminent. I am an individual. You do the math. No individual is a `credible threat' unless that individual is Superman. We all know Superman is a comic book character and no real threat to anything.

The hard work of making change, and it is ALWAYS hard work, will be done by us ants, as always, be it transcontinental railroads, Hitler defeating armies, or corporation defeating social movements.

Enough of that. Now I would like to make some logical points about constitutional amendments and specifically what my offering 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 all the bases. It puts absolute conditions on court opinions possible if legitimate decisions are to be made using the entire constitution around the subject matter of this amendment.

The second phrase is also absolute; an outright declaration that no artificial person exists when the power of law associates people into any sort of legal entity.

The third phrase reinforces with absolute clarity and force the implication of the first phrase.

I do believe that covers all those 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 negate the corporate person as free to engage as persons under the constitution.

Section 2. No entity not a person, and no persons 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.

The first three phrases may be looked at, separately and together, as the knife separating all non-citizens and all legal associations from any open political influence in our national life.

There will always be the dishonest. Like the poor, they are always with us. That is the purview of law enforcement, not the constitution.

The next part of the section is a sunshine section. 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.

Be assured, most people want the good in their lives, be that good material comfort or spiritual peace. There's nothing like an honest society to bring peace of mind to all.

Peace of soul is the work we all must engage in individually.

A good life and an easy mind go far to making peace of soul not only possible, but a rewarding pursuit.

Do you see my thought on using the words I placed in my proposal?

So, why the choice of `to any political purpose?' The word `any' controls the phrase `political purpose,' which is left undefined for the work of the people in defining what is included, but more importantly, leaving the subject open.

What help do we get 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.

Not quite up to The Federalist Papers, but all that work does not need repeated.

[William H. Falberg]

Amendment XXVIII
Sec. 1 "Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution."

Sec. 2
“Incorporated entities shall be forbidden to interfere in any way with the conduct of government unless
specifically chartered to do so by the US Congress.”

[minorheretic]

Mr Falberg,

I like your Section 2 in general. Just say no to any corporate interference of any kind.

Something to think about, though: What if a group of ordinary citizens wants to organize to promote clean air legislation? Or to promote changes in any type of law? Are they denied the corporate form? There are non-profit corporations.

It has always seemed odd to me that certain kinds of non-profits are forbidden to engage in lobbying, but all for-profit corporations are allowed. Perhaps the profit versus non-profit distinction should be made.

[William H. Falberg]

"Something to think about, though: What if a group of ordinary citizens wants to organize to promote clean air legislation?"
Good point. I see no reason PAC's shouldn't be able to incorporate for that purpose and have a charter granted to raise advertising funds under the conditions they couldn't engage in mortage loans or arms sales to Iran. A charter could be written for any purpose that didn't threaten national security or harm the public.

"Or to promote changes in any type of law? Are they denied the corporate form? There are non-profit corporations."
I think in many cases restrictions might be added that they identify themselves and where they're coming from. They might be limited to a period of time or dollars spent...........that would have to be debated and decided by Congress in terms of how it would affect the public welfare. Each case would be specific and that's the beauty of custom-written charters; they'd allow some things that might not be allowed under present law because some activity can't be generalized without stepping on the special interests of another class. I don't think we'd want to muzzle the Press in any way, but I'd sure want their market area broken up to prevent monopolies of information. News Corp., NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NPR come to mind.

"It has always seemed odd to me that certain kinds of non-profits are forbidden to engage in lobbying, but all for-profit corporations are allowed. Perhaps the profit versus non-profit distinction should be made."
I totally agree. Again, charter conditions could impose restrictions on one form and not to another based on their over-all impact on the public. There are no doubt many "classes" of corporate endeavor that would "boiler-plate" into general policy and they, in themselves, would form the definitions of "corporation" from the one we know into a multitude of more specific classifications. As it is, we have only "Chapter S", etc to describe JP Morgan and Joe's Garage, Inc. though they have nothing else in common. That means in reality that Joe gets screwed with endless regulation because JP Morgan needs watching. There's really no reason for class warfare among fellow Americans. We just need to level the playing field with sensibly written corporate charters that don't favor one business class over another. Charters are the place to do it; not broad-based legislation.

In order to make that happen we have to exert sovereign federal control over corporations, not treat them as sovereign persons. I can't think why any small business owner wouldn't support this idea. I do.

[minorheretic]

Mr. Falberg,

Add the words "for-profit" and ditch the chartering language. As in,

“Incorporated for-profit entities shall be forbidden to interfere in any way with the conduct of government"

Sierra Club? Fine. Exxon Mobil? Nope. National Right to Life Committee? Yes. Planned Parenthood? Yes. Goldman Sachs? No.

For me the dividing line is fiduciary responsibility, which I term fiduciary stupidity. The officers of a for-profit corporation are required to increase shareholder value without any other qualifiers, which makes corporations act roughly as short-sighted as yeast cells and about as ethical as your average serial killer.

It occurs to me that there are non-incorporated for-profit entities, but that would be limited to sole proprietorships and some partnerships.

[William H. Falberg]

Declaration of Corporate Dissolution


Whereas the incorporation, by Sovereign decree, of private entities proved so successful as a means to expand, by force, the commercial hegemony of European Empires, the US Constitution granted Congress the authority to grant Letters of Marque; and

Whereas Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution authorized Congress sole authority to grant Letters of Marque to incorporated private merchants in pursuit of foreign possessions, without specific reference to the capture by unfair financial advantage of domestic property, it is implied that that authority is likewise applicable to all corporations; and

Whereas the several States usurped that implied power to grant their own charters of incorporation for commercial purposes, said Constitutional ambiguity inadvertently created a loophole for the unofficial sanction of unlimited incorporation within the jurisdiction of a limited governmental corporation, as defined by the Constitution itself; and

Whereas the several States failed to exercise responsible sovereign authority over the terms and conditions of said corporations' charters, there has evolved an economic system that is dominated by sovereign corporate entities whose only claim to personhood is that of comprising a human collective; and

Whereas the personhood of thusly incorporated entities had no basis in logic or law, the creation of a fictitious person was instituted as a legal fiction to define their nature; and

Whereas fictitious persons didn't exist when the Constitution was written, they couldn't possibly have been implied by the Constitution as being natural persons; and

Whereas the Constitution applies only to natural persons, the terms and conditions of corporate charters are subject to Congressional authorization under the authority of Article I, Section 8; and

Whereas the unauthorized sovereignty of corporate entities has existed since the ratification of this Constitution and subsequent corporations have unduly profited therefrom, it is incumbent upon the US Treasury to dissolve any corporation deemed unnecessary to the function of a healthy economic system; and

Whereas corporations are as unique as the markets they serve, it is the duty of Congress to apportion such rights and obligations to corporate entities as the common good requires, according to the nature of their diverse enterprises; and

Whereas the re-structuring of a global economic system is at best a daunting task it is hereby demanded that the full resources of the Internal Revenue Service be re-directed to auditing and re-chartering such corporate entities; and

Whereas taxes will need to be collected, it is further demanded that a federal tax at the point of sale be instituted, to free aforementioned IRS personnel for this task; and

Whereas the transformation hereby enacted by this Amendment will take considerable time to implement, the urgency is such that Congress shall consider no other legislation until it is accomplished; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the legislatures of the 50 States, that We, The People call for an Article Five Constitutional Convention to pass the following Amendments:


Amendment XXVIII
"Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution."

Amendment XXIX
“Incorporated entities shall be forbidden to interfere in any way with the conduct of government unless
specifically chartered to do so by the US Congress.”



In support of this declaration I cite the following chronicle of corporate usurpation since the Constitution's ratification:

www.theusconstitution.org/upload/fck/file/File_storage/A%20Capitalist%20Joker(1).pdf?phpMyAdmin=TzXZ9IzqiNgbGqj5tqLH06F5Bxe


with an introduction by Molly Morgan:

www.wilpf.org/docs/ccp/corp/ACP/Personhood_Talk.pdf


If #OWS could put aside its policy demands and focus on this one solitary systemic demand, the critic mass needed for an Article Five Constitutional Convention would appear over-night with the support of a very vocal “silent majority”.