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

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
According to your argument, local and federal governments are also "groups of people". Then they should be able to make any regulation they may choose to impose. You just defeated your own argument.

No, it reinforces it. They are groups of people. People that work for us, the people as a whole. They only do stuff we allow them to do. We, the entire people, are the owner. If they say something the majority of us don’t like, then we can fire them(vote them out). Just like a majority of shareholders can vote out the CEO of a company if the majority doesn’t like what he is doing.


That is the irony of it all. The elected government is in many ways, closely resembles a corporation.

The problem is the people that work for that corporation have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around.

No, I don't think that it does. Elected government doesn't resemble a corporation at all. For some, it's their major complaint heck it was Romneys platform. Corporate decision making is from the top down and benefits those at the top of the structure, and those at the bottom incidentally and accidentally. Our political system is based on decision making that comes from the bottom up. This is not to say it is not infiltrated with thieves and corruption acting in it's own best interest alone - but you don't kill yourself because you have a disease. You kill the disease.

I admire the efforts of this group, something has to be done to curb the influence money buys in our government but I don't think this is it, which pains me to say. I don't think it will go anywhere beyond the Press Club which is the right thing. Something meant to stop cronyism has to be very carefully worded, if this passed it would affect a whole hell of a lot more than Corporations. I don't know what those words are but the amendment as is, is dangerous.

Originally posted by METACOMET
This is problem, reaction, solution and I think a lot of you are advocating the controlled reaction without realizing it. I'm not knocking anybody, all of the posts so far have heart in the right place. On top of that, it is not very obvious. Not obvious but obviously effective.

Who here believes that the supreme court granted corporate person-hood? If you believe this, you are incorrect.

In citizens united, the supreme court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that restricted expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Why?

First we need a basic understanding of the roles of the 3 branches of government. Foremost being that the supreme court does not write legislation or pass laws.

Then we need to understand why corporations have first amendment rights. The supreme court did not give any rights to corporations. They upheld first amendment rights that the legislature and executive had themselves granted.

The mainstream media will tell you that the supreme court is bad, or that the constitution is bad, or that free speech is bad and we must change it. What they will not tell you is that the legislative and executive branches wrote and passed the law into US CODE that gives corporations 14th amendment rights of equal protection, and thus 1st amendment rights.

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

So how does that grant corporate person-hood and first amendment rights?

Amendment 14 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.

All that has to be done is to remove united states code Title 1, Chap 1, SS 1. But this has not been the focus of the debate, has it? The focus has been to denounce the supreme court for not setting the precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress and the executive signed into law. Americans need to be weary of that kind of precedent.

All that has to be done to do away with this silliness is a presidential signature to nullify the code. It is that simple. Obama could get rid of corporate person-hood in the time it would take him to place his signature on a piece of paper.

That being said, has the debate actually been about renouncing corporate person-hood? Nope. It has been about weakening the very foundation of free speech and attacking the first amendment. The next play in this insipid game is to amend the first amendment in order to attack YOUR free speech.

This is actually a brilliant strategy. The legislature and the executive gave corporations 14th amendment rights using united states code knowing the people would eventually disapprove. Then they write and pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in conflict with the corporate personhood that they have already granted. When BCRA is challenged in the court, the debate is steered towards weakening the Constitution (which grants actual rights) and not united states code that grants color of law rights to corporations.

This is problem, reaction, solution. People's will is deliberately being steered down an increasingly narrowing road so that they might agree to their own destruction. Don't fall for it.

edit on 12-2-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)

Ummm...I thought that this post needed some more time in the sun as the herd seems to have missed it somehow..........Read the above post by METACOMET...then if you want to change the status of corporate personhood then petition the Whitehouse to remove the code....

YouSir

Forgive me if it's already been written...

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

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.

A person/citizen of the united states is naturally protected by constitutional rights, of which the thirteenth amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, (slavery being a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work and/or perform tasks against their will).

Under current law, corporations are considered people/citizens and are afforded the rights of the constitution.

Yet, corporations are "property that can be owned", traded, used as political mouthpieces of their owners/masters, etc, which is in violation of the thirteenth amendment.

Therefore, either corporations are not people/citizens of the united states or they are, (in which case their "owners/masters" are breaking constitutional law and should be punished accordingly).

reply to post by adjensen


I'm gonna be honest... I only kinda halfway understand what this means. I'm the dumb kid on this one.



Still, I WILL say that every time I underestimate how much power "we the people" actually hold over the governments, both state and federal, something like this happens that makes me a little pleasantly surprised.

reply to post by Flux8


I sympathize with your post, and I apologize for commenting on something irrelevant.

I ADORE your avatar. Doc Brown is one of my favorite characters from anything.

ANYwho, God bless. I won't blame the mods if they delete this.

If corporations are people then every stockholder/corporation owner in the country is violating the 13th amendment. People can't own people. Since 1865.

EDIT: Flux8 beat me to it.

Either way, whether it's liberal propaganda or not.. it is something that needs to happen.

all news orginizations are corporate entities, what happens with them? all religious groups are technically a corporation, do they get silenced?

this bill will cripple your voice in government. think of any group you belong to, maybe its an environmental group, AARP, NAACP, the occupy movement, pro life group or even the NRA. this bill would shut down their ability to represent you in congress, on your behalf.

this website would also fall under this bill.

this bill is nothing more than a government take over of the 1st amendment, its meant to silence the people.

Originally posted by miniatus
Either way, whether it's liberal propaganda or not.. it is something that needs to happen.

If it is "propaganda" it should not amend our Constitution and give OUR rights to be decided about by corrupted "lawmakers". Neo-Lib or Neo-Con, are equally guilty of destroying We the People's Constitutional Rights.

Remember, lawmakers and government in general will NOT protect Your rights - even if you voted for them, they have the power, and will most likely be reelected, no matter how badly they protect "your rights".

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

 

We, the entire people, are the owner. If they say something the majority of us don’t like, then we can fire them(vote them out).
The elected government is in many ways, closely resembles a corporation.

Just look at the approval rating of Congress, it simply does not work as your theory predicts.

reply to post by adjensen


I am already wary of of the language in the proposed legislation:

"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."

Case in point: en.wikipedia.org...

What about events or circumstances where, rather than a legal entity referred to as a corporation, its spontaneous complement enters the marketplace?

I admit I lack full understanding about corporate personhood (e.g. the benefits corporate personhood confers). I'll read up on this & maybe develop an informed opinion, but from a cursory glance I get the impression that anything not a natural person has no right (e.g. a private firm that is not incorporated, since it is not a "natural person") & is therefore subject to regulation by the People (despite that people disagree all the time).

A simple illustration that comes to mind is a lemonade stand. Granted there are already restrictions on lemonade stands of varying kinds throughout the U.S., but it seems that this bill could be interpreted as saying exchange is not a natural person & therefore not entitled to any right--only natural persons are entitled to rights; therefore, every exchange must be regulated (which, I think, is already an imperative in advanced economies). So I have no right to make lemonade & sell it to my neighbor(s), except as decreed by the People, Federal, State or local law.

That is an interpretation which could be used to hamstring trade in general to benefit a select few.

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

USC › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1 Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

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;

USC › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 79 › § 7701

(1) Person The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Amendment 14 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.

The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, USC and UCC does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify it. So please ask yourself why are we being led down the road of amending the constitution? It's an important question.

Originally posted by METACOMET
The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, USC and UCC does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify it. So please ask yourself why are we being led down the road of amending the constitution? It's an important question.

Because the courts have held, since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886, that corporations are persons, who are entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and no presidential signature can wipe that away.

reply to post by adjensen


Sorry but I don't hold much hope that this will pass. The government and the corporation are pretty much one and the same now. How many times in history has an oligarchy outlawed itself?

reply to post by adjensen


Oh #......I just realized....If this passes, every single person with an ALL CAPS Birth Certificate is screwed.....That makes them a government-created artificial legal entity...Since all of us are already that kind, we will lose our Constitutional rights...

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
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.

Your company is spending this money on your behalf - so you should be claiming the expense of those signs and other "free speech" as a taxable benefit.

What about the other citizens who don't have the benefit of a 100% self owned company bankrolling their political opinions?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by WhiteAlice

 

... corporation will be taxed (less deductions, loopholes, black holes--GE, I'm looking at you--and the like) ... they usually have an effective tax rate (what they actually pay) of between 6-9%. Or in GE's case--0%.

It sounds like this applies to big, nationwide corporations. Small businesses usually do not have the resources or experience to take advantage of tax shelters. Maybe GE should have 0% rights, but those which pay the full rate should have all their rights?

It absolutely does and, in that sense, actually creates a situation where there is unfair competition amongst very large corporations that can locate a hq in a tax shelter and those who cannot. A small to mid-sized corp is more likely to pay more tax than a very large corporation as a result simply based on its size. That's unfair competition.

I do not think that GE should have 0% tax when their global profits can be around $14 billion. As long as they utilize the services and more of our country, they should be paying in some amount to pay for those services just as any other individual or company would within this country. Tax, at least in my eyes, is a community builder. Avoiding it because one is big enough to do so is absolutely bull# and unfair to every other tax payer in the country--corp or individual. I'm not entirely a fan of GE also because they do the same kind of evasion in paying for the clean up of their Superfund site along the Hudson. They polluted the crap out of the Hudson River to the extent that children and women cannot eat the fish within the river without substantial risk to health and yet, GE is trying to evade cleaning up their own mess. Maybe it's because I'm an accountant with science degrees as well but I fully believe that accountability needs to be taken by all parties whether its taxation or cleaning up one's mess.

Which reminds me...money.cnn.com... GE's CEO claimed that they would be paying a tax rate over 30% for the year. I should check and see if they actually did.

Ruh roh...11.3% effective tax--that's not above 30% as Immelt claimed they'd do: www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by METACOMET
The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, USC and UCC does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify it. So please ask yourself why are we being led down the road of amending the constitution? It's an important question.

Because the courts have held, since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886, that corporations are persons, who are entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and no presidential signature can wipe that away.

This is because the legislative and executive branches have granted those rights through UCC and USC and the SC has ruled that they cannot and will not repeal rights granted.

Courts don't write or make laws.

F**k

The 27th Amendment, the latest to be added to the Constitution, was ratified in 1992. The amendment, which prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next term of office, was initially submitted to the states for ratification in 1789.

I love the idea, hate bureaucracy.