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

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

The rules of artificial person stood well in the antebellum era of corporations, but that was prior to the fourteenth amendment and basic inclusion of such entities as persons guaranteed protections.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). This case set the precedent for further court rulings, funny thing is, it wasn't the courts opinion later used to to justify rulings in favor of corporations, it was the headnotes of the court reporter adding the opinion of the judge at the outset.

Source

Such an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge (which is known in legal circles as “obiter dictum”), has no legal standing and cannot be used as precedent for future court decisions. In fact, not only is obiter dictum considered non-precedential, the Supreme Court, soon after, decided that headnotes are “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession” (United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company, 1906).

What followed this in the next fifty years, after the ruling on Southern Pacific Railroad, was an onslaught of corporate dominance an evasion.

"Decade after decade it struck down laws aimed to share power with the citizenry and to promote “the general welfare.”

Source

Decade after decade it struck down laws aimed to share power with the citizenry and to promote “the general welfare.” In 1895, it declared unconstitutional a measure providing for an income tax and gutted the Sherman Antitrust Act by finding a loophole for a sugar trust. In 1905, it killed a New York state law limiting working hours. In 1917, it did likewise to a prohibition against child labor. In 1923, it wiped out another law that set minimum wages for women. In 1935 and 1936, it struck down early New Deal recovery acts.

"Welcome to unregulated multinational conglomerates, although unforeseen at the time. Welcome to tax shelters, at home and offshore, and to subsidies galore, paid for by the taxes of unsuspecting working people. Corporations were endowed with the rights of “personhood” but exempted from the responsibilities of citizenship."

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The 16th amendment was ratified on February 25, 1913

in addition to the 16th amendment you are ignoring Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. All dealing with Congressional authority to levy taxes.

As for this amendment I am in agreement with the concept. but like others pointed out I think some sections need to be better defined.

I called the MTA office and Johanna helped bring it all into focus.

They are not shifting gears as I assumed in a previous post.

This introduction to the 114th House has been cosigned by more members than the last time it was introduced in the 113th.

The proposal still has no Senator support, attributed to the high frequency of encumbents.

A vote will not take place at this Congress.

MTA considers itself a vehicle for the suppoting grassroots movement behind We The People Amendment(The People's Amendment is easier to say, right?).
They don't actually do any major lobbying. They leave it up to the local movements to pettition and lobby the state legislators.

They are "agnostic" as to the adoption process. What would be most effective is for the local and state legislature petitioning to gain such a momentum that the representatives go for it by initiative of constituent pressure.

They are aware of the possibility, but are not concerned about a Runaway Convention.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Blackhawk0044

LOL! Regardless we do use democracy... period. That doesn't make us Democratic State was my only assertion.

I never stated that we do not use democracy, I was merely clarifying what democracy is, and that you can use a system of voting that is not majority rule.

Majority rule is nothing more than bullying, the largest group forcing their will upon the smallest. It is not a thing to be praised, anymore than you would praise the Third Reich or Jim Crowe laws.

David Cobb is a MTA founder

It evens out the rich and powerful at the top of the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.

Arguing about whether a corporation is good or bad is like arguing about a hammer. I say I like the hammer. You don't like the hammer.

I am a carpenter with a hammer and I'm build nice things. Good hammer.

Now I have this same hammer but I want to bash your skull. Still a good hammer?

I'm going to spit some real truth.

Principled Liberals have been lie to and sold out by the ruling elite of the Democratic Party. Their marching orders come form Wallstreet and the big banks.

Principled Conservatives have been lied to and sold out by the ruling elite of the Republican Party, taking marching orders from the exact same corporations and banks.

I hope its alright that I paraphrased his words a good deal. These are not exact quotes. Just watch the video.

a reply to: Kali74

Which is exactly why I said that we we're founded as a Constitutional Republic, But we most definitely do not follow that same system today. So yes we are a Democratic State, but that's not the way we we're envisioned to live by the Founding Fathers. I don't understand why you have to be so argumentative about what we're trying to get across.

a reply to: Boomorangatangarang

I do have a right to spend my own money how I see fit, and so does everyone else either individually or collectively. This proposed amendment is in conflict with basic property rights. I notice that "we the people" chose to vote for the people who get all their money from bankers (Obama for example) and chose to reject politicians who get their money from individuals (Ron Paul for example). The system and campaign finance is working just fine. So, the voters are morons who cannot be trusted. So, there is your problem, and no, campaign finance reform cannot fix that. If voters had such a big problem with bankers telling them who to vote for, why did they chose Obama? Because THEY DON"T AGREE WITH YOU and prefer to be stupid, ignorant, and just all-round failures in Republic style governance. So this proposal does nothing to make people less stupid and in fact encourages them to be even more stupid because they can be even more lazy going to the polls without trying to figure out where the campaign got their funding.

This amendment would lead corporations to pursue much more illegal tactics like instead of donating to a campaign fund, hire the congressperson as a "consultant", hire their relatives, hire their campaign team workers, direct bribes, etc. which are vastly more damaging than a simple TV commercial. Where is the EVIDENCE this would work in practice? Show me another country who after disallowing corporate donations, their country then improved as a whole. If you have no evidence, then you have nothing even from a practical standpoint.

Collectives should not have more rights than individuals as they do today, but they should also not have less. I think I'm a lot more concerned by the collective's policy to kill my entire family as collateral damage to take a one in three chance to kill a terror suspect. Gee, I get in big trouble if I go around killing women and children because "hey you never know there could be a bad guy there too" I'd definitely spend the rest of my life in prison. But Obama does it as well, just the way he rolls and thats "all cool". So, I'd focus more on the hundreds of thousands of corporate murders committed by and otherwise caused by policies of the USA corporation, more than trying to control how by nong-governmental corporations are spending their money.

The foundation of government itself is corrupt. The biggest problem in government by a large factor is the non-existence of a mutually consensual social contract. What does this amendment do to address that? If you want real solutions to the problems, you have to address the problem where it started, which is the complete lack of consent of the governed to be ruled down upon by our overlords.

My recommendation to people who support this amendment is, you, yourself, decide to spend your money in an ethical way like banking at co-ops who don't give money to questionable politicians like Obama, while refraining from banking at places like Bank of America and other evil enterprises. After you have control over your own money then you can start asking others to join you. You don't need an amendment to do this. You just need to realize that if you want something done right you do it yourself instead of wallowing at the feet of politicians with some silly scrap of paper with this amendment on it.

a reply to: wayforward

I totally disagree. You can't just blame ignorant people for this. It takes a billion individuals to equal just one Koch Brother in donation money. You can grass roots your ass off all day long and still not be able to organize against such an imbalance of influence.

It's not just the Koch Brothers either. The left has their big money donors too. Corporations, SuperPacs, etc. need to be regulated if not out right banned all together.

It's been proven that in politics whoever spends the most money usually wins. You can't run a successful government by allowing money to dictate policy at every turn.

When you do it creates a system where those who elected are in the pocket of their big donors and so that is where their loyalty goes rather than to the people. Even the people who might have donated to them also, but not nearly in the amounts that some others are able to do.

You say that collectives should have no more or less rights than individuals but that is exactly what this allows. To not see how "Money is Speech" and "Massive Economic Inequality" are tied together is being blind by choice. Nobody in their right mind would buy such a ridiculous idea when it's so obvious to see that it's not true.

a reply to: wayforward

Have you ever thought perhaps people are unaware, you know, the "stupid " ones your rattling on about, and education on such things is more viable?

Corporations don't need this amendment to go further underground, as a matter of fact their setting up the new world order in front of everyone, you know, the American Pacific Century and the TPP.

I for one am for whatever means it takes, albeit educational and peaceful, to help the "morons, " as you like to call them, gain understanding of the usurpation of corporations and government. This is the only way outside of revolution, we the people can once again be we the people, not we the corporations.

Sadly, IMO, although the vested interest in this amendment is purposeful, it may set the record straight and end national corporate tyranny, however; it may be to late if given supranational corporate status under the TPP; in affect voiding nation state laws.

However, it's worth the effort...

a reply to: wayforward

I do have a right to spend my own money how I see fit,

There is quite a number of things that would land you in state or federal prison by just spending your money on them.

and so does everyone else either individually or collectively.

This is the problem. Individual people enjoy inalienable rights, not just in the USA, but all people the world over. And it is a violation of the very fabric of the universal nature to violate these inalienable rights.

When groups of people get together and decide to write up an agreement to form a partnership to achieve goals or produce things they would otherwise be unable to produce alone, they do not create, at the stroke of a pen, an artificial entity that enjoys the same inalienable rights as human beings.

It is this notion that is the prime issue of the age, because multinational conglomerates have used the contrary premise in order to enslave and exploit the entire world with all the wars and hyper-consumerism and brain-washing media.

Here is a another organization doing the same thing, just different words.

Wolf Pac takes a more open ended approach so as to await the collaborative, professionally-dedicated research team such an exacting undertaking deserves.

I imagine this could be a favorable alternative source for members who don't like the wording.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's not just the Koch Brothers either. The left has their big money donors too. Corporations, SuperPacs, etc. need to be regulated if not out right banned all together.

It's been proven that in politics whoever spends the most money usually wins. You can't run a successful government by allowing money to dictate policy at every turn.

Or we could try abolishing the problem.

If Money is Speech, and Free Speech is a guaranteed right under the 1st Amendment, then Free Money is a guaranteed right under the 1st Amendment.



Also, if Corporations are people, then every Corporate Stockholder is in violation of the 13th Amendment which specifically says you can't own people.

IMO, this should be secondary in the priorities list.

First priority should be an amendment for TERM LIMITS!!

After that, things should settle down quite a bit in Washington.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Do Public Employees Unions count? Aren't they an artificially created legal entity? What about the other unions?

Short answer yes. Any legislation restricting corporate spending in politics also restricts Unions in the same manner. I would argue that public unions differ in some ways, being legally structured to represent larges groups of people vs. a specific commercial profit-generating entity, but that debate is irrelevant. Both unions and corporations are subject to the same laws or lack there-of.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Do Public Employees Unions count? Aren't they an artificially created legal entity? What about the other unions? Thay do every bit as much to lobby and launder money for politicians as any big corp ever did.

and this post...

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: wayforward

I totally disagree. You can't just blame ignorant people for this. It takes a billion individuals to equal just one Koch Brother in donation money.

Unions vs. just the Kochs...and they have promised to spend double this in 2016

a reply to: Boomorangatangarang

Ironically the 14th amendment is what created the "statutory" corporate person. Look at your drivers license, its in all caps just like all other corporations. The government made you a subject and you dont even know it. The supreme court is correct in its rulings regarding corporations, however unpleasant and corrupt it may seem. This is because of the federal reserve, the discontinuation of "lawful" money, and the national debt. Seeing as how your identity is not your real person and you have no rights only privileges and "civil rights" as such, the 28th amendment=14thx2 won't do anything for you but may restrict corporations from donating to political campaigns, which is much needed, but what politicians never mind 2/3rds would vote for that???

a reply to: Daedal

Nice post, most people are unaware of the 14th amendment and their "contractual" statuses. It would be safe to say that most people would prefer to have nothing to do with the U.S. government, yet have no other option then to be compelled into a non-consensual contract. This needs to stop as universal law should dictate that free will is paramount.

I am overjoyed to hear about this but I wonder what the chances are of it passing?

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: Boomorangatangarang

Definitely needed ASAP in America.
I will follow this locally and petition for local measure on this.

Nice find!
S&F's!

100% agree.....this is something that every single member should get behind, no matter what political persuasion you hail from....it's a "no-brainer"....but, that still doesn't mean it'll become law...unfortunately.