|
Post by rustyhoundog on Oct 29, 2011 10:03:41 GMT -6
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. In deed, passing an amendment that removes personhood from ALL entities created by law is needed. That solves the foreign corporation conundrum by expending the Article I. Section 9 restriction on foreign national influence. The ninth amendment recognition of rights not enumerated helps protect many rights the elite wish to remove. In fact, removing personhood from entities created by law and then restricting political activity to citizen persons exclusively solves the whole problem we face. George was correct; political parties are an unmitigated evil. Let people act as individuals on political activity. As Speaker Tip O'Neill claimed, all politics is local. I say individual is as local as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Oct 29, 2011 13:27:42 GMT -6
tessab and rusty,
There is a balance, or maybe a conflict, in this kind of legal writing between generality and specificity. At either extreme we get unintended consequences.
Adding some indicator of money or finance would be fine. What I worry about is twofold: 1) some team of corporate lawyers coming up with some other constitutionally protected act that can be tied to campaign contributions, and 2) gifts in kind and services.
In the proposed 29th there is an exception in one section for volunteer labor. This is important and good.
I thought of the phrase "material contributions", but then thought about the broad nature of the interpretation of that phrase in the "war on terror." It also has a causal definition in tort law.
Maybe it is as simple as making it "contributions of money or gifts in kind...", since gifts in kind actually covers both goods and services.
I can't think of what other thing might be associated with campaign contributions to protect them, so I'll give up on the first concern. So how about this:
Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions of money or gifts in kind 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.
|
|
|
Post by tessab on Oct 30, 2011 8:01:04 GMT -6
Right-Wing Paranoia Machine. It was buried in the middle of the post.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Oct 30, 2011 12:51:27 GMT -6
Lam wrote:
"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."
We already have "freedom to regulate" by Congress, it's called campaign contribution regulation passed by Congress; an unsuccessful constitutional exercise negated by the CU decision.
We need a section in the constitution that restricts contributions to real persons exclusively. That way the Court can not allow entities created by law to distort the political process using money or in kind contributions. Setting detailed in the constitution allows all kinds of distortions, of the details.
Restricting contributors is the only way to go; no room for distortion of details. Allowing Congress to make law on that framework will then allow for citizen pro or anti action at the polls. That could easily accommodate a public financing system.
I think this offering is an appropriate amendment to remove much corruption from our political processes and correct the excesses of corporations.
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.
Add comments to this proposal and read some answers here.
[http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=9]
|
|