It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Vermont Is Gearing Up to Strike a Major Blow to Corporate Personhood

page: 1
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I hope this is the right place for this thread as it is most certainly political.

I was sent this link this morning and actually I was happy to read it. Seems like very good news if it can be pulled off. Corporations really do need to back off and get their little grubby fingers out of our lives.

Some excerpts of the article:

On the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, Vermont politicians are moving to deny corporations the rights that humans enjoy.




January 22, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email. Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition � A year ago today, the Supreme Court issued its bizarre Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections as a form of “free speech” for the corporate “person.” Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the dissent, had the task of recalling the majority to planet earth and basic common sense.

"Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires," wrote Stevens. "Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."


and one more excerpt:




The language in the Lyons resolution is unabashed. "The profits and institutional survival of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings," it states, noting that corporations "have used their so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws.”


Read The FULL ARTICLE HERE

Just how much could possibly change with this? Any ideas?




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I thought I should add the fact that this would be the 28th time the Constitution would be amended. Might actually be a positive amendment in my book anyway.

One more excerpt from the article:




Such an amendment would be the 28th time we have corrected our founding document to reflect political reality and social change. In other words, we've done it 27 times before in answer to the call of history, and we can do it again. There is a groundswell of support: 76 percent of Americans, according to a recent ABC News poll, said they opposed the Citizens United decision.


ARTICLE



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This needs to be done. If we let it go, there will be unlimited damage done to the people by "the corporate people".
I thought this was a slap in the face, to see if anyone would notice. At least Vermont did.

Whoah, If an AI in the future per say becomes the stategic brains of a corporation, wouldn't you be scared if it enjoyed the same rights as people say 50 years down the line when AI is self-aware.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Anyone else notice how there's no mention of the special interest agendas of large corporate unions, and how the members of the unions are told who the unions will support politically rather than have the members vote on who the unions will support?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


I guess the people fear their membership in the unions being withdrawn if they rock the boat. Pity really.Just another strong arm tactic of control.

I am so glad that at least Vermont has caught this. I think it is a pretty big deal and was glad it was brought to my attention. Otherwise I would have probably remained clueless about it. I hope they get more attention on it than this thread has.

Amending the Constitution is no small matter. Have the people really reached such a apathetic state about such issues?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Corporations should be passive legal entities.

Though the fictional person that they are is a useful framework for dealing with them in practice, it has fatal flaws that allow them to become immortal super persons.

A corporation should not be allowed to sue a person. They can sue other corporations to keep a balance in competition, but never a real person. The real person can never have a fair and level playing ground against a multinational corporation, so justice is impossible.

Corporations should be strictly forbidden from intervening with politics in any way. A corporation is just 1000's of other peoples wallets, and those people already have their own vote, and should be granted no more influence because they join wallets in a corporation.

The fictional person that is a corporation, was created to transform human greed into a useful tool for society. It worked fine while corporations was small local things, that died if they didn't do their stuff well, but nowadays with global branding, people buy the brand and does not evaluate the product, and we get immortal super beasts, that leaves no chance for the smaller guy doing a better job. They will kill him using law or branding.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Anyone else notice how there's no mention of the special interest agendas of large corporate unions, and how the members of the unions are told who the unions will support politically rather than have the members vote on who the unions will support?


It'd be great if they moved against them too, but this is a start.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


It seems there is still misinterpretation in regards to Citizens V. Federal Election Commission.

At the heart of the argument was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In short, that section dealt with 'electioneering' and limited the speech of persons. This very act goes against the First Amendment because Congress cannot abridge the speech thereof. The arguments made on the floors of the Senate are as follows:

Senator Cantwell: “[Section 203] is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves.”

Senator McCain: “[Negative attack ads] simply drive up an individual candidate’s negative polling numbers and increase public cynicism for public service in general.”

Senator Boxer: “We have an opportunity to stop [negative ads] and basically say, if you want to talk about an issue, that is fine, but you can’t mention a candidate . . . .”

The above quotes from both sides of the aisle illustrate Congress' consent that they do have the ability to abridge the freedom of speech. Their focus upon 'negative attack ads' was a red herring and was ultimately used to get the provisions of Section 203 passed in the House (The senate version of the Act was not the bill that passed.)

The arguments made in Citizen United vs FEC were that they just because they are a legal entity formed as a corporation does not mean their freedom of speech, in this case the infamous Hillary documentary in review, should not be allowed to run.

Political dissent, regardless of public opinion is needed in the free exchange of ideas and it is not Congress' duties to decide what or when that speech should be allowed. It is the duty of the People to weigh the merits of such speech. By striking down the 203 provision, the Court was recognizing not that corporations are 'persons' (that precedent was already established and generally held), but a group of individuals acting under a corporation are held outside of the law and thus are not allowed to exercise their freedom of speech.

Citizen United vs. FEC does not change the limits that corporations or unions can contribute. It did however enable both entities the ability to voice their political voices collectively during election seasons.
edit on 23-1-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
ahhhhh does the words assassinations and CIA comes in mind? Because who messes with corporations don't last long



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
What about all the foreign money pouring into the great Obammers campaign fund that seems to be forgotten now?? Then there are still the lobbyists running around with envelopes full of cash handing it out left and right for votes.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 

Corporation are created by law. We don't even have to permit the legal structure of corporations in the US if we don't want them organized here.

Corporations are formed to protect the operators from personal liability. If we think this law creates evil and irresponsible organizations, we can change the law!

You don't go about stripping the rights of Americans who form groups to advocate for their interests (economic or social) to "get" corporations! You never limit the rights of Americans to gain a political advantage that you desire. Don't let corporations form - repeal those laws which establish the corporate organizatoin and do away with them.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
The abolition of corporate personhood is something I would support at the federal level but not at the state level as I believe it would only serve as a cautionary tale to the other states. What will probably happen is most if not all the corporations with operations in Vermont will pack up and move out.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
After looking at the article I did realize something here. Are they trying for a Constitutional Convention? It could be interesting if they can pull it off but so far no one actually has managed to get 34 states to do one though.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Corporate Personhood is effectively dead as a group of people got together decreeing the US as a corporation and all of it's citizens it's employees and ordered the nation exempt from alot of things and as a result this was stopped effectively ending the policy when it was used to protect the nation instead of continually trashing it.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Can we also amend this to make "bribery"...I mean..."lobbying" completely illegal?

Go Vermont!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
Can we also amend this to make "bribery"...I mean..."lobbying" completely illegal?

Go Vermont!


Nope. That would a violation of the First Amendment. Now bribery is and should always be illegal. It should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. But to make lobbying illegal would effectively remove your ability to redress the Government.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
Can we also amend this to make "bribery"...I mean..."lobbying" completely illegal?

Go Vermont!


Nope. That would a violation of the First Amendment. Now bribery is and should always be illegal. It should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. But to make lobbying illegal would effectively remove your ability to redress the Government.


It wouldn't effect my ability to redress the government one little bit because I couldn't afford a lobbyist if I wanted one. I currently redress my representatives via letters, e-mails as well as by telephone and I don't see that changing if lobbying is outlawed.

Now, if you're saying that to outlaw lobbying would remove the ability of the corporate elite to drown out my voice via the use of lobbyist, then you're right. Maybe, you were actually addressing the corporate elite when you made that statement. If you were, then it's my mistake you are exactly right.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


S&F Good find and good for Vermont. Corporations are not people! People are the product of a live human birth.

Due to the fact that our current Supreme court has decided to award corporations with personhood via the "Citizens United" decision and the dire effects that I believe such a decision will have with regards to silencing the voice of actual human beings, I would support a constitutional amendment at this time.

I am of the belief that amending our constitution should be avoided unless absolutely necessary but, IMO this ruling steps over the line. Although I would also add that it's not only corporate influence that's drowning out the voters' voice, but there is also a little problem know as "Dual Citizenship" that is plaguing our government.

IMO, No one who retains dual citizenship should be allowed to hold an elected office in the federal government and they should not be allowed to be appointed to federal positions within the administration. Isn't "Dual Loyalty" an oxymoron?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
It wouldn't effect my ability to redress the government one little bit because I couldn't afford a lobbyist if I wanted one. I currently redress my representatives via letters, e-mails as well as by telephone and I don't see that changing if lobbying is outlawed.


Yes it would because at what point do you limit ones speech? Because a company has problems with the way government is being run? Does not company have people that serve its interest behind it? So because they are part of a much maligned word 'corporation', they should be denied their right to redress the government? Does not the the law, in its spirit, represent each equally? Now I understand under real life circumstances that judges and such have not followed this principle. But you think if we had a law in place that limited the free speech of anyone that the government wouldn't distort that to their own purposes? That is naive to think otherwise.



Now, if you're saying that to outlaw lobbying would remove the ability of the corporate elite to drown out my voice via the use of lobbyist, then you're right. Maybe, you were actually addressing the corporate elite when you made that statement. If you were, then it's my mistake you are exactly right.


What exactly is the corporate elite? Can you define it? No you cannot not. The corporate elite ranges from the Oil barons to Walmart. Who should we silence? I know let us silence all those that wish to change the current system. No wait, let us silence the big corporations because they spout different values than my own....where do we drawn the line in limiting the ability to redress the government?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Flatfish
It wouldn't effect my ability to redress the government one little bit because I couldn't afford a lobbyist if I wanted one. I currently redress my representatives via letters, e-mails as well as by telephone and I don't see that changing if lobbying is outlawed.


Yes it would because at what point do you limit ones speech? Because a company has problems with the way government is being run? Does not company have people that serve its interest behind it? So because they are part of a much maligned word 'corporation', they should be denied their right to redress the government? Does not the the law, in its spirit, represent each equally? Now I understand under real life circumstances that judges and such have not followed this principle. But you think if we had a law in place that limited the free speech of anyone that the government wouldn't distort that to their own purposes? That is naive to think otherwise.



Now, if you're saying that to outlaw lobbying would remove the ability of the corporate elite to drown out my voice via the use of lobbyist, then you're right. Maybe, you were actually addressing the corporate elite when you made that statement. If you were, then it's my mistake you are exactly right.


What exactly is the corporate elite? Can you define it? No you cannot not. The corporate elite ranges from the Oil barons to Walmart. Who should we silence? I know let us silence all those that wish to change the current system. No wait, let us silence the big corporations because they spout different values than my own....where do we drawn the line in limiting the ability to redress the government?


I believe that you have totally missed the point. I do not advocate limiting the speech of any human being nor have I promoted the idea that we should impair someones ability to redress their government. The whole point here is that corporations are not people. Our constitution does not guarantee that voice to corporate entities. I think it says something like; "Of, By & For, The People." IMO, No entity other than individual members of the living, breathing, pool of citizen voters, should be given the right to redress their government. If you can't vote, then you shouldn't have a voice.

Furthermore, my definition of the corporate elite would go something like this; Anyone who can afford to hire a paid lobbyist and send them to Washington to bribe our elected officials into passing legislation centered around their special interest.

Currently, Lobbyist lined up outside the offices of our congressmen & women on a daily basis are the biggest impediment to my ability to redress my government. The voice of common voter is being drowned out by special interest money. Ever hear the old saying; "Money Talks & Bull# Walks?" Guess who has all the money?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join