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.


Vermont Becomes First State to Call for Amendment that Would Remove Corporations From Constitution

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by dbarnhart

You are absolutely right. But take it a little further. If you want to sue a corporation (which no longer exists), who do you sue? There is no person any more. Do you have to sue all ten million shareholders individually? You would have to serve them all with papers and collect $1 from each one. What good does that do? What happens when almost all of them can show they didn't know about the action causing the suit, or voted against it?

Do all shareholders have to sign off on the purchase order to buy toilet paper for the stores? How about getting them all to vote on hiring decisions? How else can you hold them responsible?

Do you hold the majority business owners personally responsible? They then declare bankruptcy and no one is ever willing to run a business again.

And, no, the present Supreme Court didn't give personhood to corporations. Corporations have been in our laws for well over a century, and they're defined as such in 1 USC 1. (Definitions)

Why are people doing it? Mindless rage and frustration, and political posturing.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:22 PM
What are the chances the Obamba admin will sue Vermont just like he sued Arizona over something he doesn't like going his way?

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:46 PM
Here's some interesting info about corporations in early Colonial America.

Nine of the original American colonies were colonial corporations whose charters granted them broad governmental powers subject to retention of "English liberties" by the residents therein and the king's right to collect customs on merchant shipping. " Body corporate and politique in Fact and Name, by the Name of the Governor and Company of the Mattachusetts Bay" was typical language in these charters. These corporations were even sometimes (as in this case) sold from one set of investors to another: the modern legal distinction between commercial and political (e.g. municipal) corporations was not yet common.

Corporate origins of the United States

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM

power to the people

as it should be,

thank you

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by charles1952

First off let me say I'm not a huge fan of Soulless Corporation. However....

A person has a right to free speech as granted by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[4] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not living entities in the way that humans are.[5]

The United States Supreme Court has already spoken on the Issue, even if a new Amendment or law was pass that took away a corporations rights it would be unconstitutional and struck down.

If we go down this road sooner or later we will start taking right away from groups that we may not happen to agree with and this can change depending who is calling the shots. Its a slippery slop to say the least.

So I say we take a page from NASCAR and have our political add and political figure wear jackets with everyone who has sponsored them. It would make it a hell of a lot easier to tell who is for what that way.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:53 PM
The Proposed 28th Amendment. Good I hope this can follow suit as an example in other states. As well as picks up the well needed exposure.

Site sponsoring the ideas
edit on 28-4-2012 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:10 PM
Wait, so what does this bill exactly mean? I'm a little slow today. I live in New Mexico so imvquite interested.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:17 PM
Wow, this really shows the ignorance of some people.
Of course corporations aren't "people".
No one ever said that they were, even though some people want to tax them, and hold them responsible for what they do.
What you mental midgets are referring to is the SCOTUS ruling that corporations have free speech.
Its not the same thing.
If they ruled that corps couldn't contribute to political campaigns, then they would have had to rule that media couldn't have political speech, and newspapers could write abut politics.
They are corporations, after all.
Get a clue kids.
If you don't like what corporations say, don't listen.
Get informed.
The information is available, but you guys clearly don't care about knowing the truth, or even understanding the law.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by sicksonezer0

Generally laws are made due to the fact that the crime in question needs to be addressed. Meaning that it's already being done. Rape laws are generally not even on books in places where it doesn't a.)happen, b.)become acknowledged as a problem. Same for corporations.

I can also see this set of laws coming back to haunt us at some later date. Especially in situations where favoritism is shown.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:27 PM
Chiming in with two different perspectives from the last two men in the Republican race.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:33 PM
Corporate personhood doesn't come from the Constitution, it comes from US code, written by congress and signed by the president.
edit on 28-4-2012 by METACOMET because: fx

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:55 PM
UNIONS should be banned from political activities too it should be 100% all groups and corps or NONE at all

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:00 AM

If we go down this road sooner or later we will start taking right away from groups that we may not happen to agree with

I have three words for you: "We the People...."

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by JBRiddle

I agree. Taking away rights and responsibilities from corporations or companies will force them to shut down. This amendment is in the same category as one forbidding the US to go to war, exciting but unworkable.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:24 AM
I think they should remove corporations AND unions from being allowed to corrupt our politicians. It's got to stop on BOTH sides.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I think they should remove corporations AND unions from being allowed to corrupt our politicians. It's got to stop on BOTH sides.

Something to consider when making an argument for or against.

The US is not a democracy, its a representative republic. The public votes to send representatives who in turn act on behalf of the people.

Could the same argument not be applied to unions and corporations (more so to unions but you get the idea)?

If we argue an entity cannot represent a group of people in political matters how would that affect Congress? Or even the President / vice President?

Just food for thought.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by oghamxx

Awesome! Leave it to Vermont. They've always been edgy.
When your boss and your politics become bedfellows it's a dangerous mix.
It is too easy to be forced to vote along party lines -
or be threatened with the loss of your employment for not towing the line.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:28 AM
When you think about it Corporations (which were long ago declared "persons" in most state constitutions and those similar documents produced in foreign countries BEFORE scientific evidence proved that humans are humans and corporations amalgamations of humans with similar interests, but are no responsible human beings with inalienable God given rights...) actually get to vote twice. Once through the many members of the corporation who each have the right to vote, and once more through the corporation doling out money to sway votes. This is entirely unfair and undemocratic. It is "One Man, One Vote" or one person one vote. If I vote against a certain representative and the corporation gets two votes, or more, as is often the case, it is no longer fair. Plus they cannot be held responsible for murdering another corporation or human being! Therefore, since they have no "life" they have no rights, according to even their own estimation about the value of human life as say, a zygote or a sperm. A corporation cannot reproduce, cannot marry, cannot be held responsible for acts of violence, cannot be punished by death or dissolution. Therefore it cannot be "human." It is an amalgam of humans, who also should not be forced to vote the way the corporations do, simply because they work for them! We really do need to bring sanity back to the world!

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by whisperindave

Show one example of a state constitution that declares a corporation a person.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:39 AM
edit on 29-4-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in