Car
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Car on Oct 29, 2011 8:42:34 GMT -6
On the Amendment 29 thread I quoted Move to Amend's ideas on the topic. Here I'll only link, since their four versions of this amendment are basically the same as Lam's: movetoamend.org/democracy-amendments
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Oct 30, 2011 0:07:11 GMT -6
On the Amendment 29 thread I quoted Move to Amend's ideas on the topic. Here I'll only link, since their four versions of this amendment are basically the same as Lam's: movetoamend.org/democracy-amendmentsI don't mean to be arrogant but our amendment, WolfPAC's amendment (not just Lam's), is way better. It sums up every one of the alternative amendments on that site in a single sentence. That's pretty awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Brady Swenson on Oct 30, 2011 10:43:20 GMT -6
"(William H. Falberg) 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. ... 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." I agree that this is crucial. Look at the Bill of Rights for the model of the kind of powerful, distilled, simplicity we need to achieve to decrease the ease with which the MSM can distort the object of the amendments. "(William H. Falberg) 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." Yes. Yes. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 30, 2011 11:57:11 GMT -6
I keep forgetting there's another web link for this. Should I unsubscribe from the 28 recruiting notification? It's a habit to click on the link given in the e-mail.
Anyway;
Relative to the proposed 29th Amendment: How about a phrase stating:
“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.”
That would permit the limited functions of a PAC to do its specific work with narrowly defined financial limitations; while excluding all other incorporated special interest entities from participating at all.
|
|
|
Post by jennstudebaker on Oct 30, 2011 17:20:06 GMT -6
Hey Lam,
I really appreciate that you are keeping the Amendments clean and concise. When we first started this, I was worried that they would get far off subject and muddled.
Thanks for all the hard work, Jenn
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 31, 2011 12:34:41 GMT -6
As the population of #OWS grows exponentially, please consider that the legal and economic landscape would inprove dramatically with a 28th Amendment written as simply as :
Amendment XXVIII
... Sec 1. Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.
At first, the 47% will support the 28th Amendment and the 53% will oppose it. But as the debate heats up, as it surely will, the 53% will start to realize that they've lost 50% of their hard-earned wealth since 1970; and join the 47%. When that happens, the 53% will become the 99% ; and the aught 'teens will make the '60s look like the '50s .
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Nov 1, 2011 23:10:37 GMT -6
Does it help to flesh it out a little with some legalese, as such:
Declaration of Corporate Dependence
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 the Constitution authorized Congress sole authority to grant such charters, the granting of commercial charters was never specifically authorized nor forbidden; and
Whereas the several States assumed the implied powers of that omission to grant charters of incorporation for commercial purposes, the Constitution 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 sovereign authority over the terms and conditions of said corporations' charters, there has evolved an economic system that is dominated by sovereign corporate entities that claim personhood by virtue of comprising a human collective; and
Whereas the personhood of thusly incorporated entities had no basis in logic, 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 confiscate the cash and assets of any corporation deemed unnecessary to a functional 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 suggested 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 suggested 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.”
|
|
|
Post by sfieldman on Nov 4, 2011 14:01:57 GMT -6
I think there are three levels here that are getting conflated.
1) There must be a statement of purpose for the Constitutional Convention; i.e. their mandate as granted by the People of the States who call for the Convention. That message needs to be simple, clear, and short. It needs to garner broad enough support to get through the different convention processes in 34 of the 50 States. The amendment as written at the top of this thread is that sort of language.
2) There must be language to be introduced and debated at the Convention, which will then be proposed to the People to be ratified by separate conventions in 37 of the 50 States. That language must be clear legal language that stands up to scrutiny and interpretation without losing it's intent. Brevity and art are important but not to the point of losing meaning. The amendment as it stood on October 27th was that sort of language. (I haven't been able to post since then, a lot seems to have changed in the last week.)
3) There needs to be enabling legislation that brings in the details that are not appropriate for a Constitution. That would be lengthier wording that may change. It would be various ideas for how things could be done to achieve the purpose behind the amendment rather than a statement of the principal. This language would be much more complex and would have to be lobbied for using the might of OWS and whatever other leverage can be mustered (which will be considerable or else the amendment isn't going to pass anyway) so that it can get through the legislative process right away. Depending on how some of the legalese shakes out, the amendment itself could cause McCain-Feingold (which is decent but not great) to spring back into effect since it would reverse the Supreme Court decision banned the enforcement of McCain-Feingold (the Supreme Court can't remove it from the legislative rolls, they can just prevent enforcement, if the law is still in effect and the Constitution changes, the law should be enforced again).
|
|
|
Post by sfieldman on Nov 4, 2011 14:09:58 GMT -6
A quick note on bundling:
The way partnership was handled in the October 27th version of the amendment could be used to take care of this problem.
That language allowed a partnership the rights of persons only if the partnership is made up entirely of persons and if the partnership has unanimity on how it will act. The way I would envision that is that you could legislatively outlaw bundling, which would not eliminate the rights of individuals to give money collectively so long as they formed a partnership that registered the names and contribution amounts of all partners and itself was listed as the bundled contributor to the political system. So if J.P. Morgan Chase wants to donate $1,000,000 by bundling donations from their executives and other top employees, they can start a partnership. Each partner can would be listed with their contributions and the partnership would be listed as the donor to the campaign. (The campaign could be required by law to list it both ways.) That would create complete transparency.
There are a lot of details to work out. This sort of thing would have to be in the enabling legislation because it is too complex to be in the amendment itself. That poses some risks, but unless you've got good language that would put this sort of thing into the amendment without troubling consequences, I don't know what else you would do. If you have such language, I'd love to hear it and give you feedback.
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Nov 4, 2011 19:33:34 GMT -6
If we keep the section in the proposed 29th Amendment on donation limits and leave it at $100 or thereabouts then bundling becomes a non-issue. Bundle away, corporate execs! We'll be bundling too, at $100 a person.
My original proposal was 8 hours at minimum wage, so Lloyd Blankfein and co. will be restricted to $58.
|
|
|
Post by Navigateur on Feb 4, 2012 23:27:58 GMT -6
Corporate personhood did not cause political bribery and removing corporate personhood will not end political bribery. So there's no good reason to address the lesser problem (corporate personhood) first, and the greater problem - political bribery - later! Besides which there's no guarantee that ending corporate personhood will even end Citizens United at all, because Citizens United is based on the "free press" part of the First Amendment, and not necessarily on "corporate personhood". Also, even if both of the Wolf-Pac-proposed amendments 28 and 29 pass, they still allow unlimited delayed bribes paid to ex-politicians. This is another startling omission as Cenk Uygur (and others) know this phenomenon very well.
As for the "T-shirt test", "I support the Stop Corruption Amendment" has more scope than allowing corruption to continue but only ending "corporate personhood", which, as explained, might not even succeed in reversing Citizens United at all, let alone everything else it leaves out altogether. So tell me why the following "Stop Corruption Amendment", which addresses the real problem, isn't more suitable as Wolf-Pac's 28th:
Section 1. A government guided only by conscience; no elected official within the United States shall be permitted to raise, or benefit from, any wealth in whatever form or however used, from any person or entity during or after their time in Office, as a result of any decision they were expected to make or made while in Office.
Section 2. Each person who shall have officially declared candidacy for elected Office within the United States shall be given an equal amount of wealth as each of his or her competitors shall be given to campaign for Office. No candidate nor prospective candidate shall have been permitted before the date of the election, including before his or her official declaration of candidacy, to have spent any wealth outside of this amount to campaign for Office, nor to have compelled any other entity or person to do so.
And please don't tell me this is too radical - that is nonsense! Let's be open-minded on this forum's format too - "Corporations are not people", even if it fully passes the United States government, may end up doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to slow down the quantity of political corruption even one bit. Besides which, wouldn't it be embarrassing if the government just turned round and said "We already knew that, so it wouldn't even change anything"? So why let that happen?
|
|
|
Post by Navigateur on Feb 4, 2012 23:38:50 GMT -6
(from last post)
Sorry let me shorten Section 2:
Section 2. Each person who shall have officially declared candidacy for elected Office within the United States shall be given an equal amount of wealth as each of their competitors to campaign for Office. No candidate nor prospective candidate shall have been permitted before the date of the election, including before his or her official declaration of candidacy, to have spent any wealth outside of this amount to campaign for Office, nor to have compelled any other entity or person to do so.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Feb 17, 2012 22:11:07 GMT -6
We have gotten to a point where the amendment to remove corporate personhood no longer refers to that aim.
Here is a set that will work.
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.
DUH!
It even includes forceful restriction of who and how; the openness should appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Navigateur on Feb 21, 2012 21:18:39 GMT -6
rustyhounddog - Why do you think the constitution shouldn't ban corruption?
|
|
|
Post by harddo on Dec 13, 2012 2:25:59 GMT -6
To celebrate New Year, Christmas,and say goodbye "The end of the world",the lowest price this year for you: www.msngoodsales.com cheap+good quality+free shipping made in china A&F,Adidas,Armani,Gucci,Boss,Burberry,Ck,Nike,Mk,Polo,The North Face,Versace,Fendi,Hermes.Ed Hardy... 1,Hot selling:hat&scarf,Various styles, high quality,lowest $12 warm your up. work-konw brand bag only $25.88 2,Clothing-jacket,windcoat,T-shirt,suit,jean,skirt, pirce: $38-$120 3,Shoes,Nlike, Lebron James ,Jordan $43 4,Lady earring,necklace,bangle,LV,Juicy,Gucci,MK,Prada, only $40-$90, 5,Belt for armani.lv,hermes,burberry,DG,Gucci,prada,versace,each one only$22
|
|