Eventually, you will have to make an effort to join us. Why not now?

[mmonk]

Last week, I went to see Jeff Clements speak at Peace University in Raleigh, NC. Jeff is the author of, "Corporations Are Not People-Why They Have More Rights Than You Do And What You Can Do About It". At the talk and in the book, there is mention of the effort to amend the Constitution back in the favor of people rather than corporate entities. One such movement is the effort of Free Speech For People and their "The People's Rights Amendment". After he spoke, I asked him about the ALEC and wouldn't that present a problem. He said exposure of ALEC would eventually work against it, that sunlight could be our weapon. He thought a serious effort of working on this amendment state by state could change the conversation in our favor. Anyway, here is wording and a link:

The People's Rights Amendment

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/201

Please sign the resolution DU

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Thanks for this.

[mmonk]

31. Thanks.

I know you know the difficulty involved and the hard work required in standing up to these powerful entities.

[libtodeath]

2. K&R

[lunatica]

3. Thanks. I signed the petition

[annabanana]

4. kic'd/rec'd/faced/tweeted & emailed!. . . . . . n/t

[RobertEarl]

5. OWNC

Occupy Western North Carolina is presenting to our local county, town and city boards, a resolution for them to sign that in effect requests the NC legislature to ask congress to send back to the state an amendment for ratification.

They may resist, but we will get an amendment.

[mmonk]

6. Excellent.

[Ed Suspicious]

7. Awesome.

"We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons. "

Then, however there would be a need to define a "natural person". Is a genetically engineered person going to be a "natural person"?

[jerseyjack]

19. Yes, Steve Forbes should be allowed to vote and give to campaigns.

[xtraxritical]

8. What is ALEC and why can't you just type it out?

[supernova]

11. American Legislative Exchange Council

Otherwise known as the GOP Hack state legislators all purpose bill mill, sponsored by the Koch Brothers. Hostile to democracy and anything resembling good governance.


http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[lonestarnot]

13. The Richie Rich motherfucking bloodsucking skankwad nutfuckers of the 1% who throw all the dough

to manipulate and govern the United States of America's people to benefit the same motherfuckers. That is who ALEC is. :hatethemsmilie:

[lastlib]

15. You left out Koch-licking and santorum-spewing.....let's get it right here.

Edit to add: K & R!!!

[lonestarnot]

17. I thought that was understood by fucking all. I get nothing RIGHT! But for smelling the CON

Edit to add: I get nothing RIGHT!

[mmonk]

22. Sorry. Had to leave after the post.

American Legislative Exchange Council as others have replied. Sorry about that.

[happerbolic]

28. You're so cute.....!

[mmonk]

30. I am?

[Zorra]

9. +1. On related subject, today is the last day we can contribute to Elizabeth Warren.

She would totally back the PRA.

And Alan Grayson, too!

[mmonk]

21. Excellent reminders.

[supernova]

10. Signed

Thank you for posting.

[SunSeeker]

12. K&R&signed!!

[riderinthestorm]

14. This is great. An enthusiastic K&R! nt

[gopiscrap]

16. did it

[felix_numinous]

18. Done

and I will pass this on!

[jerseyjack]

20. Remember, states can call a Constitutional Convention anmd change this. They don't need Congress.

[eallen]

23. The phrasing is contradictory, and fails to address the core issue of Citizens United

"Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press..."

"The press" is a set of businesses that publish media. Nothing more and nothing less. What the Supreme Court said in Citizens United is that it had no basis for distinguishing between the movie published by Citizens United, Inc., and an editorial published by the New York Times. And that therefore both were protected by the 1st amendment.

This proposed amendment does nothing to resolve that.

The issue is thornier than most people think.

[mmonk]

25. 1 & 2 establishes the limitation to natural persons.

#3 establishes that through this limitation, there is no abridgement of speech or freedom of the press.

[eallen]

26. So, does that give NYT (not a natural person) protection in publishing political editorials?

The problem is entirely in the phrase "freedom of the press." A newspaper is not a natural person. It is an organization. Typically meant to turn a profit. I.e., "the press" is a set of businesses. And has been since the 17th century.

There are three questions anyone forwarding this amendment needs to answer:

1) Does it leave the NYT with Constitutional protection in publishing political editorials prior to an election?

2) Does it leave a media organization like Citizens United with Constitutional protection in publishing a movie prior to an election?

3) How does the wording of the amendment lead a judge to reach the first two answers as a conclusion?

[mmonk]

29. The issue with Citizens United is corporate personhood and money as speech.

These rulings hand over the political system to corporations based on rights for people extended incorrectly to corporations.

[eallen]

32. You didn't answer the questions: Would the NYT, a corporation, still have 1st amendment protection?

The 1st amendment was intended originally and still today protects more than just natural persons. "The press" was then and is now a complex set of social institutions that includes theater houses, printers, editors, publishers, and distributors, many of which are businesses and corporations. Not natural persons.

So far, no one I've seen proposing cures to Citizens United has squarely faced that issue.

And my three questions stand unanswered.

[mmonk]

33. I did. The issue in question was do Corporations have Bill of Rights protections

like natural persons and does money constitute speech or does speech constitute speech? Freedom of the press is a specific granting of rights. Is every citizen a news press? Of course not. Are corporations people? Of course not. Number 3 says this does not alter 1st amendment rights of either.

[eallen]

34. Was that a "yes"? Or a "no"?

If the proposed amendment does not alter the 1st amendment rights of corporations, then it doesn't change the result of Citizens United.

[Swede Atlanta]

24. This long overdue but I fear..............

now that corporations can control our entire political system and through it appointments to the Court, the likelihood of this ever becoming law, at least in my lifetime, is limited.

I can't believe that Romney said that corporations are people. Please introduce me to Mr. Or Miss General Motors? They don't exist. Corporations and other business entities exist only as legal fictions created to promote and facilitate business. A corporation has shareholders, employees, customers, etc. but it, itself, is not a person.

[onestepforward]

27. Signed!

[lonestarnot]

35. Did you see MSNBC this a.m.

Even Lukie Russert can't stop us!