It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Constitutional Amendment Introduced in Congress Ensuring Rights for People, Not Corporations

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:55 PM
If you ever get the wild hankering, email MTA or Rick Nolan's crew. They've been very quick with their responses to my inquiries.

Thank you all for the engaging discussion.

I don't have much else to add beyond what I've already said. I feel like everyone's voiced concerns and questions have been answered thus far.

Here's a segment of the press conference for the amendment in which Rick Nolan speaks on the subject.

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:19 PM
a reply to: Boomorangatangarang

hopefully they pass this amendment soon.

Nearly impossible with the corporate congress we have now and Emperor Obama I and his executive imperial decrees.

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:08 AM
a reply to: fltcui

An Article V convention would be ok. This limits the convention to discussing/voting only on amendments that the states calling for the convention agree to before the convention is convened. i.e., it isn't an actual constitutional convention which would allow them to rewrite the constitution.

That is absolutely FALSE

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits discussion about anything at all. Such a convention may have been called for the express purpose of fixing some particular problem, but once convened, there is absolutely no limits on what can be proposed - including a complete rewrite of the existing Constitution. This is called a "runaway convention" and no-one has ever figured out how to prevent such a thing from happening.

Our current Constitution is an example of exactly that process. What we now call the Constitutional Convention was convened to fix a couple of problems with the original Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) - specifically how to fix it so the Federal Government could actually pay its bills owed to foreign Governments for Revolutionary War loans, and the Federal Government relationship to the various states. The delegates decided that it was impossible for a 'simple fix' and started over from scratch.

The closest an Article 5 Convention came to being instituted was in the early 20th century in support of Women's Suffrage. Many states, especially in the South were adamantly opposed to women voting, but by 1918 more than 20 states had established women's right to vote and the push for an Article 5 Convention to make it a Constitutional imperative was gaining strength. The fear of a 'runaway' convention, should the Article 5 Convention succeed was part of the impetus for Congress to act first - without that threat, Congress would have been happy to let the states do it piecemeal.

A runaway convention can do all kinds of damage proposing amendments for lots of stuff that has no relationship to what the original justification was for. Of course those proposals must still get ratified by the States, but Congress is very jealous of its right to propose amendments and will usually act to handle the situation in order to forestall a Article 5 convention.
edit on 22/5/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/5/2015 by rnaa because: grammar repair

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:37 AM
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What's wrong with the Constitution the way it is, sans the non-ratified 16th amendment.

Your attempt to inject a bogus issue (the 16th Amendment) is hear by officially called out as rubbish. You may not LIKE the 16th Amendment because you don't like taxes, but you are just being silly and embarrass yourself by suggesting that it was not ratified properly.

For those who came in late, those who claim the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly base their argument on a confusion over when Ohio became a state. In 1953, Congress moved to arbitrate which of two dates, February 19th 1803 or March 1st 1803, Ohio officially became a State. The confusion was caused by ambiguous paper work and change in procedure - but notice that both dates are in 1803. Those who argue against the 16th claim that Ohio didn't become a State until Congress decided between two different dates in 1803 - which happened in 1953. Well folks, Ohio became a state in 1803, the exact date was clarified in 1953.

How that affects the 16th Amendment is this - NOT AT ALL - even if Ohio was not a State until 1953. How can that be, you say? If Ohio was not a state in 1913 when the 16th was ratified then its ratification vote doesn't count!

That might be true, but consider this: the 16th Amendment was declared ratified on February 3rd 1913 when Delaware became the 36th State to ratify it. If you discount Ohio's vote, then you only have 35 States ratifying it. The problem with that argument is that New Mexico and Wyoming ALSO ratified on February 3.

At the end of the day on February 3 1913 there were 38 States that had ratified the 16th Amendment; 37 if you don't count Ohio. Since 36 States were required for ratification, the 16th was officially and correctly ratified on February 3 1913, with or without Ohio. Also New Jersey ratified on February 4.

This is just a silly, stupid argument that should have been abandoned by tax rebels a long long long long time ago.

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:40 AM
a reply to: rnaa

You have captured the spirit of Article V in ithis post so well.

You are very enlightnening with unfamiliar events, though, being partial to citation, I would love to read into some links recomended by yourself for confirmation, further comprehension and reinforcement of the examples put forth.

Its very interesting that the fore fathers wrote it up so that the progeny could rewrite the whole thing eventually.

It makes sense that any amendment of this scope and magnitude must have the momentum of a tremendous grass-roots movement, without the support of Tube Media for a handicap, in order for it to be considered by a sucessful host of states.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Boomorangatangarang because: one letter

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:08 PM
I really do wish that people would actually read Citizens United.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation, as a group of people, may be recognized as having some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.[1]

Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

Oh NOS!!!!!!!

Unions wouldn't be able to buy elections!

Works for me.
edit on 29-5-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in