28th 1st mod

[minorheretic]

I mistakenly posted in "As is," but here it is in it's own thread:

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.

Another formulation would modify the "organizations" phrase to "organizations engaged in influencing legislation or the outcome of an election," which would take a whack at corporate and millionaire lobbying. The modified phrase could be used in the 29th as well, which would truly level the legislative playing field.

[rustyhoundog]

So, I'll ask you; what does "not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution" actually mean and how does it remove personhood?

[minorheretic]

One of the big problems with constitutional law and Supreme court decisions as the stand is that they equate giving money to candidates with political speech. We all have a right to free speech, but we don't all have the same access to money. This confusion of money with speech has hindered campaign finance laws and given huge power to millionaires and corporations.

To say that the act of contributing to a campaign is not constitutionally protected is to say that giving money is not political speech. The general way it is phrased prevents some millionaire with lawyers from associating campaign contributions with any other constitutionally protected behavior.

The purpose of the section is to make the control of campaign contributions a common matter of statute law rather than an issue for the Supreme Court to strike down.

[reddwarf2956]

Removing Section 4 is a bad idea. If a non-citizen entity - say a alien - says 'prove that I can not contribute', Congress would be powerless to enforce this amendment without the section. And the courts would be tied up with the question who does enforce it.

[jas]

I think "incumbents" and "legislation" should be added into Sec 2.

Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to incumbents and/or candidates for public office, or to organizations engaged in influencing legislation or the outcome of an election, are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution.

It also seems to me that "contributions" is a bit general.

[rustyhoundog]

Oct 27, 2011 19:30:26 GMT -6 minorheretic said:

One of the big problems with constitutional law and Supreme court decisions as the stand is that they equate giving money to candidates with political speech. We all have a right to free speech, but we don't all have the same access to money. This confusion of money with speech has hindered campaign finance laws and given huge power to millionaires and corporations.

To say that the act of contributing to a campaign is not constitutionally protected is to say that giving money is not political speech. The general way it is phrased prevents some millionaire with lawyers from associating campaign contributions with any other constitutionally protected behavior.

The purpose of the section is to make the control of campaign contributions a common matter of statute law rather than an issue for the Supreme Court to strike down.

"To say that the act of contributing to a campaign is not constitutionally protected" is to remove the inherent protection of a constitutional statement saying that only citizens can contribute to political causes. That will allow Congress and the states to remove that citizen right by law.

Is that the unintended out come you want?

[Lam]

Oct 28, 2011 11:57:34 GMT -6 rustyhoundog said:

Oct 27, 2011 19:30:26 GMT -6 minorheretic said:

One of the big problems with constitutional law and Supreme court decisions as the stand is that they equate giving money to candidates with political speech. We all have a right to free speech, but we don't all have the same access to money. This confusion of money with speech has hindered campaign finance laws and given huge power to millionaires and corporations.

To say that the act of contributing to a campaign is not constitutionally protected is to say that giving money is not political speech. The general way it is phrased prevents some millionaire with lawyers from associating campaign contributions with any other constitutionally protected behavior.

The purpose of the section is to make the control of campaign contributions a common matter of statute law rather than an issue for the Supreme Court to strike down.

"To say that the act of contributing to a campaign is not constitutionally protected" is to remove the inherent protection of a constitutional statement saying that only citizens can contribute to political causes. That will allow Congress and the states to remove that citizen right by law.

Is that the unintended out come you want?

I'm actually okay with this. We need to have some sort of freedom to regulate campaign contribution. And if Congress attempts to do anything stupid, the voters will speak out. Also, I seriously doubt they'd want to cut off their only source of campaign funding. Unless they planned to add a public financing system in place of private donations. I'm okay with that too.

[tessab]

One unintended consequence is that Congress could ban certain parties. This would make another McCarthy-era-style "commie lynching" very likely to re-occur, and much more severely, at that. I've been giving serious thought to how to fix this, but I'm not done yet. I know that the current wording gives me a very bad feeling.

[minorheretic]

reddwarf: I'm ok with returning the enforcement clause - no harm.

jas: An incumbent who is running for reelection is a candidate, so no need. Thanks for the reinforcement on legislation - big bucks lobbyists beware!

rusty: The section says that only citizens are allowed to contribute, if anyone is. It doesn't guarantee it. But, as Lam pointed out, politicians would be cutting their own throats to ban it entirely.

tessab: I don't see how this would allow the banning of political parties, given the first amendment.

[tessab]

Oct 27, 2011 17:58:10 GMT -6 minorheretic said:

I mistakenly posted in "As is," but here it is in it's own thread:

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.

@minor Heretic The problem is in Sec 2. Isn't a political party an organization dedicated to influencing the outcome of an election? (Remember George Washington hated political parties...) And the word "contribution" is vague. Contribution could mean any kind of participation, not just monetary. A contribution could be...sign making. Participating in a protest. So if contributing to any such organization is no longer a protected act, then obviously, it falls under the same category as profanity, doesn't it? Therefore, it could be banned if Congress so wished. This could, theoretically, even make OWS illegal.

I was thinking this afternoon that the reforms that we want are not entirely new to the spirit of the existing Constitution. Hear me out for a minute.

The Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." However, giving corporations extraordinary power (without concomitant liability or responsibility) by considering them the same as human beings does exactly that. Their free speech becomes more important than ours. Their right to influence elections causes the erosion of every other right enumerated.

Then there's Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, that, among other things, says that "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." Don't multinational corporations count as agents of a foreign state?

It might help if we could show, in the final texts, that we have a Constitutional leg to stand on. Saving that, perhaps these statements might be part of the sales package to the state legislatures. The Founding Fathers did indeed try to set a precedent against this sort of thing. It's just that, now, Corporations now wield the kind of power previously only held by Kings, Princes, and Foreign States.

[tessab]

Oct 27, 2011 17:58:10 GMT -6 minorheretic said:

I mistakenly posted in "As is," but here it is in it's own thread:

Sec 1; 28th: Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Sigh. I was loving Sec 1. I thought you had it nailed. Then I got to thinking, could "natural persons" be confused with "naturalized citizens" or "natural-born citizens"? That could give it a whole new meaning. Even if this is light-years from what you mean, it is very susceptible to media spin. They could say it meant that lots of immigrants wouldn't have rights either.

I also began to think: it's not the fact we don't think that Corporations shouldn't have any constitutional rights. Most of us don't want to outlaw corporations completely. I don't think that's what Cenk is after. The problem is a problem of magnitude. They should get rights, but not at the same level as human beings, especially when it comes to free speech.

I'm working on this, but I'm not ready to post yet. My idea is a bit wordier, and I like the simplicity of the text you have here--elegant and to the point. However, I think it reaches a little bit too far still. It's a really good effort in the right direction though.

[Lam]

The problem is in Sec 2. Isn't a political party an organization dedicated to influencing the outcome of an election? (Remember George Washington hated political parties...) And the word "contribution" is vague. Contribution could mean any kind of participation, not just monetary. A contribution could be...sign making. Participating in a protest. So if contributing to any such organization is no longer a protected act, then obviously, it falls under the same category as profanity, doesn't it? Therefore, it could be banned if Congress so wished. This could, theoretically, even make OWS illegal.

I don't see how it allows Congress to illegalize groups such as WolfPAC because the amendment only removes protection of contributions, but yes, Congress could make donations illegal or limit them in some way. But as I said earlier

"I'm actually okay with this. We need to have some sort of freedom to regulate campaign contribution. And if Congress attempts to do anything stupid, the voters will speak out. Also, I seriously doubt they'd want to cut off their only source of campaign funding. Unless they planned to add a public financing system in place of private donations. I'm okay with that too."

Then I got to thinking, could "natural persons" be confused with "naturalized citizens" or "natural-born citizens"?

I was initially concerned about that too, but I looked up what "natural persons" means. More specifically, what the legal definition of "natural persons" means. It's essentially a person who was born naturally.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/natural+person

So immigrants should be covered.

And the issue of corporations having some rights has been brought up. In an older draft, we actually had rights of corporations laid out in a section, but it was argued that even before the idea of corporate personhood presented its ugly face, corporations already had and exercised several rights such as owning property, the right to sue/be sued, an obligation to pay taxes, etc.

[tessab]

Oct 28, 2011 22:50:43 GMT -6 Lam said:

The problem is in Sec 2. Isn't a political party an organization dedicated to influencing the outcome of an election? (Remember George Washington hated political parties...) And the word "contribution" is vague. Contribution could mean any kind of participation, not just monetary. A contribution could be...sign making. Participating in a protest. So if contributing to any such organization is no longer a protected act, then obviously, it falls under the same category as profanity, doesn't it? Therefore, it could be banned if Congress so wished. This could, theoretically, even make OWS illegal.

I don't see how it allows Congress to illegalize groups such as WolfPAC because the amendment only removes protection of contributions, but yes, Congress could make donations illegal or limit them in some way. But as I said earlier

"I'm actually okay with this. We need to have some sort of freedom to regulate campaign contribution. And if Congress attempts to do anything stupid, the voters will speak out. Also, I seriously doubt they'd want to cut off their only source of campaign funding. Unless they planned to add a public financing system in place of private donations. I'm okay with that too."

Perhaps you could consider adding the word "monetary" or "financial" to the text, before the word "contribution" and "as speech" after the word "protected." I don't think the three words I suggest should encumber the text overly. (Do we have to post a mod for just three words?) It does two other important things as well.

First, it neatly sets up a precedent for finance reform. We know that we can't re-combine 28 and 29 because we are most vulnerable on the particulars of campaign finance reform. If all eggs are in one basket, all can be lost. If Amendment 29 is defeated, the words "monetary" or "financial" in Amendment 28 will set up some precedent, and we can try again for campaign finance reform.

Second, it deftly avoids attacks by the right-wing paranoia machine. We need to untangle money from speech just a little in the 28th, without being too broad, so that we can pursue our goals with more confidence. Even if you do not believe that organizations will be banned or that the Congress and DHS will not abuse their powers under the Patriot Act, too many of the people can and will be made to believe it.

I'm a Southerner, and I can tell you religion and politics are like conjoined twins here. The RWPM runs the Bible Belt, and it will shrewdly turn the churches against you by calling your Amendment anti-Christian if you give them opening to do so. I might add: Southerners are well-represented in the military as well. We cannot succeed without a few Bible Belt states, and it will be very helpful to have some sympathy from the National Guard should they be called out against protesters. And of course broad constitutional powers to punish organizations are bad to give to a government which is proven to abuse power.

That's the important part. On the notion of trusting Congress, their untrustworthiness in certain matters is why we're here. It's a big leap of faith for me to put innocent trust in the some of the same folks that voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, pass the Patriot Act, and empower the DHS.

If the Patriot Act existed during the McCarthy era, the Sixties would never have been possible. We do not want to even hint at anything like that in the Constitution. We do not want an America where you can say anything you want, but if you actually start showing up on the street and giving money to causes, you can be indefinitely jailed, have your skull cracked, or be killed for giving material support to anti-American or terrorist organizations.

On a side note, Did you forget the anarchy symbol of the wall of the Governor's mansion? Maybe it's a silly publicity stunt by somebody misguided, or it could be a shot over the bow by someone who doesn't like us. The RWPM runs 24 hours a day. They don't have to be smarter than us. They just have to control the levers of fear.

[rustyhoundog]

Oct 28, 2011 17:48:26 GMT -6 minorheretic said:

reddwarf:

tessab: I don't see how this would allow the banning of political parties, given the first amendment.

Taking any political act out from under constitutional protection opens the bias of the opposition to free operation. Forming a political party is not constitutionally protected under this proposal, not that political parties are anything other than a national curse.

[rustyhoundog]

Oct 29, 2011 5:29:37 GMT -6 tessab said:

Oct 28, 2011 22:50:43 GMT -6 Lam said:

Tessa,

The RWPM runs 24 hours a day. They don't have to be smarter than us. They just have to control the levers of fear.

Good reply; you get us back to reality. I have one question; what does RWPM stand for?

John.