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.

 

Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood - "Our democracy is at stake"

page: 1
21

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Raw Story


The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is not the same as free speech.



“Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stak


I wonder how far this will get, i'm actually surprised to be honest.

It is good to see that the corporate effect on politics is being noticed.
edit on 8-12-2011 by BeforeTheHangmansNoose because: *




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Very surprising, especially being Kalifornia.

2nd line


U



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by USarmyFL
 


Well isn't California seen as some kind of mini-Europe? Doesn't surprise me that it got called for there.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Right now,the US Federal Government could preempt all 'state corporate law' under the courts current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.You could get around the Tenth Amendment and get them all out of Delaware.Corporate Personhood mocks the Bill of Rights and could also be removed.The Founding Fathers would remove it.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Probably the only thing I have ever seen California do correctly



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   


“Move to Amend’s proposed amendment would provide the basis for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The Supreme Court has no legitimate right to grant people’s rights to corporations. We must clearly establish that it is we, The People, who are meant to rule.”


Wrong.

U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals


U.S Code is written by Congress and signed into law by the president. The supreme court doesn't write US Code. The corporations don't write the code. The Supreme Court CORRECTLY ruled that it couldn't take away free speech THAT CONGRESS and the EXECUTIVE GAVE THE CORPORATIONS BY WRITING THE LAW.

But what the heck! Lets all denounce the supreme court for not setting a tyrannical precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress and the executive signed into law.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Money is not a form of free speech.

This is wonderful! Absolutely wonderful, and more people need to stand up and say this. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. They do not deserve the same rights we have!



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Who's free speech rights are you suggesting would be revoked?
Do you believe corporations go to bed at night?
edit on 9-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Who's free speech rights are you suggesting would be revoked?


Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution: Section 1.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals


The issue is: Should the supreme court be allowed to rule against the 14th amendment? The answer should be obvious. Go after congress for writing the code, go after the president for signing it into law. Don't denounce the supreme court for not setting a tyrannical precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking 14th amendment rights. The code is wrong, corporatism is wrong, the supreme court was right. Wave your fingers at the real culprits!
edit on 9-12-2011 by METACOMET because: xxx



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: METACOMET
Its not about going after this branch or that branch and placing blame on who went wrong.

The 28th amendment intends to set the precedent that corporations are legal constructs, therefore, not people.

Because so many of our worldly problems are due to the unchecked actions of corporations, we need to revaluate the purpose of the corporate model in alignment and in relation to the world model.

This is all still just a precursor to redrafting the constitution, so I like to muse.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
This is one amendment that absolutely needs to happen as soon as possible. The corporate system we have is evil.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
AMAZING!
ACCURATE!
WOW!



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: METACOMET

From the most recent press release in April 29 2015


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

“The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely."

David Cobb



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The argument will always be:

1. Let big business run the country

-OR-

2. Let big government run the country

People don't realize that the two are very similar. The ideal system is balanced, and neither the government nor companies have to much control.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


The ideal system is balanced, and neither the government nor companies have too much control.


I agree whole-heartedly to this statement.

I am engaging in paradoxical values as I am in full support of this amendment, yet I believe all law is inherently in conradistinction to the natural order of the universe.

But that's just, lke, my opinion, man.



new topics

top topics



 
21

log in

join