'We The People' Amendment To Be Introduced To Reverse Corporate 'Personhood'

page: 1
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+31 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

'We The People' Amendment To Be Introduced To Reverse Corporate 'Personhood'


www.addicti nginfo.org

On Monday, February 11th at 10 AM EST at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Move to Amend will join members of Congress as they introduce Move to Amend’s “We the People Amendment,” an amendment that clearly and unequivocally states that:

1) Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and

2) Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ibtimes.com




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Is this how we try and regain control of our broken political and legal system? Or just liberal propaganda that will go nowhere?


an amendment that clearly and unequivocally states that:

1) Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and

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

The "We the People Amendment" is being introduced by Representative Rick Nolan (DFL-Minnesota) and Representative Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin).

It's hard to argue with either of those points -- but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will, specifically those who have a vested interest in maintaining "citizenship" for corporations, as well as what has become essentially unlimited campaign spending.

Politicians.

Corporations.

Big media.

I know I wouldn't be taking bets on this getting past those three.

www.addicti nginfo.org
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-2-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Text of the proposed amendment:


Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


Site of the bunch behind it: Move to Amend



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Any movement of people to change the system which directs thier daily lives, and the wider events in thier nation, stands on one thing, and one thing alone. That is, the willingness of people to stand up and voice thier opinions, and direct thier government to act on thier behalf, according to thier collective will. If enough people feel strongly enough, and are prepared to work hard and remain firm in the face of opposition to that collective will, then the movement will go somewhere, even if all they do is hit a wall built of corruption, which has its value in and of itself.

It is not a matter of wether an ideal is solid, but wether the people advocating it are prepared to stay the course, and see the actions they instigate, through to thier logical conclusion.


+24 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
If corporations are people then they should pay personal income tax at the same rate that people do.They should not be allowed any credits or deductions above or beyond what people are allowed. They should have to have health insurance in THEIR name or pay the obamacare penalty tax.
If corporations are people then they should be treated as people in all aspects of the law including being jailed or sued for their actions.

If corporations aren`t held to the same standard as other people are then they AREN`T people!



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The doublethink is high is that piece.

They will protect the right of people to participate in the political system by restricting them form participating in it via organized and recognized groups.


When you divide people and prevent them from joining forces, then you destroy their ability to affect change.

The first amendment dies with this amendment.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.

So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes.

Not necessarily, and their income tax has nothing to do with the earnings of the corporation, unless they receive a divided or the price of their shares rises and they sell it, in which case they pay Capital Gains taxes, not income taxes on the gain.


And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.

This has nothing to do with shareholder's rights, rather with the determination, by the Supreme Court, that corporations are, for legal purposes, "people".


So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.

Sorry, but no. Rights do not transfer -- they are inherent or granted by the government.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
This has nothing to do with shareholder's rights, rather with the determination, by the Supreme Court, that corporations are, for legal purposes, "people".
.....................................

Sorry, but no. Rights do not transfer -- they are inherent or granted by the government.


Did you not read the reason the court decided such? Basically, They decided such because corporations consist of people, and thistly they will be recognized as said people/person in regard to the law.

There is no transferal of rights. It is just a recognition of the rights of the people in that corporation, and the rights of the people that own that corporation.

A corporation is property that can be owned. The amount of ownership is defined by the number of shares you own. If you own all the shares, you own the corporation. You have a right to use your property. The people in that corporation are your employees. Those employees have a right to speak on their own, and a right to speak on the behalf of the owner.

It’s basic logic here.
It’s amazing how the left has brainwashed people into blocking their mind from understanding that simple working concept.

I own a company 100% lock stock and barrel. A politician is badmouthing my company. I have a right to use what ever money my company has to put up signs and advertisements to retaliate against his attack on my property and my livelihood.

That is not the company’s right to free speech,that is my right to free speech. The government tries to cap my freedom of speech by saying they are just restricting a corporation’s right to speak, but in that very action, they cap my right to use what I own to voice my opinion. They say “we are not restricting a person’s right to speak, just a corporation which is an artificial entity” Yes, and artificial entity which is the property of a person that can no longer use it to voice his opinion.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

1) Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and


if there is anyone out there that understands the 'strawman/ coporate fiction' concept, can you see the problem with this?

look closely at the language used.


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.

So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.


right, the stockholders individually are people, the stockholders collectively are not a seperate individual person, they are a group of individual stockholders.

My wife and I own a house, we are individually people, so collectively together with our house (property) we should be considered a third person. we also own a car so collectively my wife myself and our car should be considered a 4th person, right?
or does property only count as a person if you use that property to make money? so a truck driver should be allowed to consider himself as a person and collectively himself and his truck as a second person.


Materialistic objects and property are not people either individually or collectively no matter how many people own it or profit from it.

If a corporation is a person then it has all the protection and rights granted under the constitution including the right to life. if a corporation goes bankrupt and dies then the CEO and stockholders should be criminally charged with civil rights violations because the corporation `s right to life has been violated. The stockholder`s rights haven`t been violated because they are still alive.

The absurdity of granting a corporation the status of being a person is beyond absurd.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
HuffPo has more information

As they say, amending the constitution is a difficult and lengthy process. It is my own opinion that this method (trying to do it by Constitutional Amendment) is an inefficient waste of time that looks good but (as you can see if you google the news for this) is not accomplishing much of anything.

It'd be easier to do it as a rider to a bill or to promote through the courts (to the Supreme Court) a case where this was a key point of the argument.

I don't think this one has legs on it, but this is based on my limited experience and my own understanding of the legislative process and amending the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The fraud that is the current US government being perpetrated currently won't allow this to happen.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
A corporation is property that can be owned. The amount of ownership is defined by the number of shares you own. If you own all the shares, you own the corporation. You have a right to use your property. The people in that corporation are your employees. Those employees have a right to speak on their own, and a right to speak on the behalf of the owner.

It’s basic logic here.

By that logic, any personal property has "rights" -- does my car have rights? Is my kitchen table a person?


I own a company 100% lock stock and barrel. A politician is badmouthing my company. I have a right to use what ever money my company has to put up signs and advertisements to retaliate against his attack on my property and my livelihood.

That is not the company’s right to free speech,that is my right to free speech. The government tries to cap my freedom of speech by saying they are just restricting a corporation’s right to speak, but in that very action, they cap my right to use what I own to voice my opinion.

What are you talking about? How does saying that a corporation doesn't have a right to free speech (which is not what is being proposed here, but whatever) somehow impinge on your right to free speech? Why do you need a corporation to speak for you?

The original intent of corporate governance was to enable corporations (and partnerships and other forms of business) to enter into contracts legally. It was never expected that we'd find ourselves in an age where sham corporations are created simply to get around campaign finance regulations.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
right, the stockholders individually are people, the stockholders collectively are not a seperate individual person, they are a group of individual stockholders.

Yes, they are a group, and a group of people has a right to speak as one collective. That is what the term “right to peacefully assemble” guaranties.

So, are you saying that after a group peacefully assembles, they no longer have a right to speak as a whole?


The absurdity of granting a corporation the status of being a person is beyond absurd.

Will you get it out of your head that we are transferring rights to a corporation. That statement was absurd the first time I heard it, and it is still absurd the 50,000th time I heard it


Originally posted by adjensen
By that logic, any personal property has "rights" -- does my car have rights? Is my kitchen table a person?

No, but the owner is a person, and he can use said items to voice his opinion. You have a right to put a bumper sticker on the car, or make the care a rolling billboard, and let the car signify your distaste for a subject.

If they infringe on the right to have a bumper sticker on the car, then they infringe on freedom of speech. Not the car’s freedom of speech, but yours, the owner.

By your logic, we could say a car does not have the freedom of speech, because it is not a person, so any car that has any signage that promotes a political opinion, is illegal.



What are you talking about? How does saying that a corporation doesn't have a right to free speech (which is not what is being proposed here, but whatever) somehow impinge on your right to free speech? Why do you need a corporation to speak for you?

The original intent of corporate governance was to enable corporations (and partnerships and other forms of business) to enter into contracts legally. It was never expected that we'd find ourselves in an age where sham corporations are created simply to get around campaign finance regulations.


That is one of the basic requirements of forming a group. To allow the group as a whole to sign as one. That does not restrict in any way, what that said group is allowed to do through that entity. It just allows that group to function as a group. That is why they have for profits, non for profits, and every other type. To cater to what that group of people want to do as a group. If you can not interact with the outside world as one entity, then you basically no longer have the ability to form a group any more.

Talking as one entity, allows a group of similar like minded people to form a stable entity that will exist past the life of any single member. That will speak on behalf of all members that wish to support it.

That allows a group of people to peacefully assemble and form a single point of contact with the outside world, which they can use to voice their collective opinion (to talk as a group). That way, if one person dies, and another one joins, the message will remain strong and unwavering. It give people the ability to form an opinion that will retain continuity from generation to generation.

That is what the people are afraid of that wrote the bill. They know they can easily beat down individual opponents, but they know it’s hard to beat down a group that stands as one.

So they want to neuter the voice of the collective.

Thus, the right to peacefully assemble, to voice your grievances as one, will be gone.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Much as I'd like to see this fly, I fear you're right.




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Look at it this way.

You have a group of 500 like minded people.
Your group wants to buy advertising space on specified billboards around the city.
You can not take out an advertising contract with specified billboard company, and have all 500 people sign the contract.
With the corresponding 500 checks that would accompany it.
It’s not logical, it’s not workable, and it’s a legal nightmare.

What you do is form an entity that signifies your 500 members. That allows you to form a bank account for your collective that all 500 members can funnel money into. And when the group decides to buy advertising space, the group can sign as one(the collective) and send one check from the bank account that the collective created to pay for the activities the collective wanted to perform as a group. That allows the group to speak as one (the collective).


With the legal requirements for contracts and the like, it is impossible for a group of people to carry out financial activities as a group to support their opinion unless they can form one financial entity to work with advertisers and other companies as a single point of contact.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
So in this Amendment will it limit labor unions from contributing? As they are a artificial entity by the definition that is given. Seems they want to cut off their own nose to spite their face.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Those dirty Liberals. Trying to make things better for the common man. They should be ashamed of themselves!

No one should be allowed to curb corporate power in any way, shape, or form!

Jobs!

Economy!

That is all.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Pierce the Veil.

There's no other to the point example that reveal corporations have greater legal protection than individuals.

You want to defend Citizens United? Fine, but grant the Veil protection to individuals.





new topics

top topics



 
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join