Move to Amend

[Tisket]

Anyone heard of this: https://movetoamend.org/ ?


We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens Unitedand other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

It's in response to the Supreme Court case, Citizen's United vs Federal Election Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) and the Washington state chapter is currently collecting signatures at a rate that will see the inititiative on the statewide November ballot this year.

Was reminded by waywardgs's Oligarchy thread.

Thoughts?

[Tgo01]

human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Well this part alone proves they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Tisket]

Well this part alone proves they have no idea what they are talking about.

The Supreme court agreed.

[Latrinsorm]

Amendments are so infrequent that I'm not sure there's a precedent of creating one in direct opposition to a decision. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the government, but they have no involvement in the amendment process.

The mental gymnastics needed to affirm the opposite of the proposal are prohibitively high, but I would guess that not enough people care to go the convention route or bring sufficient influence on Congress. I could be wrong!

[Tgo01]

The Supreme court agreed.

I mean it's not just Citizens United.

Corporations are protected by the first amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, sixth amendment, seventh amendment, eighth amendment, they can sue other people or corporations just like people can, they can seek damages when they've been wronged.

I can understand their argument if they want to change things but they act like Citizens United is the first time in US history that a corporation has been afforded rights as if they were a person.

[Thondalar]

This may shock and amaze everyone here, since I'm such a White Knight for capitalism and all that, but...

I actually agree with this position....in a way. However, my Constitutional Amendment wouldn't be something so ultimately ineffective as "corporations aren't entitled to Constitutional Rights"...it would be more like "no person, corporation, or other entity shall at any time donate money to any re-election campaign."

[Archigeek]

This may shock and amaze everyone here, since I'm such a White Knight for capitalism and all that, but...

I actually agree with this position....in a way. However, my Constitutional Amendment wouldn't be something so ultimately ineffective as "corporations aren't entitled to Constitutional Rights"...it would be more like "no person, corporation, or other entity shall at any time donate money to any re-election campaign."

So then what? You let the already elected politician dole out dollars to whomever might wish to be elected? That couldn't possibly go wrong.

[Thondalar]

So then what? You let the already elected politician dole out dollars to whomever might wish to be elected? That couldn't possibly go wrong.

There is no perfect answer, only the best possible.

[waywardgs]

I'm with thondalar on this one. Want clean(er) elections? Eliminate private donations entirely. We already have a Publically financed option for elections, it's just that no one takes it because the other route reaps in so much more cash.

[Tisket]

Amendments are so infrequent that I'm not sure there's a precedent of creating one in direct opposition to a decision. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the government, but they have no involvement in the amendment process.

The mental gymnastics needed to affirm the opposite of the proposal are prohibitively high, but I would guess that not enough people care to go the convention route or bring sufficient influence on Congress. I could be wrong!

The leader of the movement, Cobb, said he expects it to take about ten years to build grassroots support and see it successfully enacted. Don't know how realistic that is but the article was interesting: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/opponents-of-corporate-personhood-eye-u-s-constitution/

[Jarvan]

Amendments are so infrequent that I'm not sure there's a precedent of creating one in direct opposition to a decision. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the government, but they have no involvement in the amendment process.

The mental gymnastics needed to affirm the opposite of the proposal are prohibitively high, but I would guess that not enough people care to go the convention route or bring sufficient influence on Congress. I could be wrong!

True. Tho if an amendment is deemed unconstitutional, it doesn't matter. If somehow this amendment came up, SCOTUS could strike it down very easily if they wanted to.

Of course it will never come up.

Also... I wonder if they say in there that Unions are not people to and have no rights.

[Jarvan]

I'm with thondalar on this one. Want clean(er) elections? Eliminate private donations entirely. We already have a Publically financed option for elections, it's just that no one takes it because the other route reaps in so much more cash.

Well.. not entirely true. No one takes it NOW, or will again, thanks to Obama.

Every presidential election had used public funds since it started until Obama. So.. honestly, you can blame that one on the Dems.

[poloneus]

Amendments are so infrequent that I'm not sure there's a precedent of creating one in direct opposition to a decision.

14th Amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Meant to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision which said Blacks were not considered citizens and enjoyed none of the rights under the Constitution. Although off the top of my head I can't think of any other example.



The leader of the movement, Cobb, said he expects it to take about ten years to build grassroots support and see it successfully enacted. Don't know how realistic that is but the article was interesting: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/opponents-of-corporate-personhood-eye-u-s-constitution/

I've been considering the feasibility of this since the decision was first handed down and have been wondering when a legitimate movement like this would begin. I was considering trying to do it myself, but was struggling on the actual language needed in a proposed amendment. I really don't agree that it would take 10 years. Not with our prospects of using social media to drum up support. There are 4 ways to get an Amendment through, and we've only used two ways (and one of those two was only used once - ending prohibition if I remember correctly.). The key here is we don't need our obstructionist federal Congress to do this. It can be organized, formally proposed, and enacted without them. Just need 2/3 of the individual State legislatures to get the ball rolling for the formal proposal. It appears that the American public overwhelmingly doesn't like the decision so 2/3 should be reasonable enough (of course depending on the language of the actual proposed Amendment). I briefly read the proposed Amendment here and Sections 1 looks problematic, but it's a good start. Sections 2 might be overly broad as well.

[poloneus]

True. Tho if an amendment is deemed unconstitutional, it doesn't matter. If somehow this amendment came up, SCOTUS could strike it down very easily if they wanted to.

Of course it will never come up.

Also... I wonder if they say in there that Unions are not people to and have no rights.

Amendments can't be deemed unconstitutional. They are part of the Constitution.

One of only two ways to overturn a Supreme Court decision is through an amendment to the actual Constitution.

[Jarvan]

Amendments can't be deemed unconstitutional. They are part of the Constitution.

So if an amendment was passed that said that gay people couldn't marry, it would be constitutional?

[poloneus]

So if an amendment was passed that said that gay people couldn't marry, it would be constitutional?

Yes. Amendments are part of the Constitution, so they can't be unconstitutional. Although your example would never happen. You;d need 2/3 for a proposal, and 3/4 to ratify.

[waywardgs]

Well.. not entirely true. No one takes it NOW, or will again, thanks to Obama.

Every presidential election had used public funds since it started until Obama. So.. honestly, you can blame that one on the Dems.

Fine, it's obama's fault- fault doesn't interest me. I think this is one of the biggest issues in politics today though and it affects both parties. Screaming about voter fraud? Worried about tainted elections? Have your voter ID laws if you like. But change things so guys like adelson, kochs, soros, et al can't make politicians dance like a stripper for a dollar. They should be beholden to the people. Not just the rich people.

[Jarvan]

Fine, it's obama's fault- fault doesn't interest me. I think this is one of the biggest issues in politics today though and it affects both parties. Screaming about voter fraud? Worried about tainted elections? Have your voter ID laws if you like. But change things so guys like adelson, kochs, soros, et al can't make politicians dance like a stripper for a dollar. They should be beholden to the people. Not just the rich people.

I agree 100%, also the unions. I don't think ANY special interest should be able to buy elections. All these "fundraisers" are a bullshit waste of time.

[Jarvan]

Yes. Amendments are part of the Constitution, so they can't be unconstitutional. Although your example would never happen. You;d need 2/3 for a proposal, and 3/4 to ratify.

I agree it isn't very likely to happen.

I guess explicitly they couldn't, but rationally they could.

[Warriorbird]

I agree 100%, also the unions. I don't think ANY special interest should be able to buy elections. All these "fundraisers" are a bullshit waste of time.

Unions were empowered by Citizens United too. They'd been declining in power beforehand. Sort of an unintended consequence, because the Republican plaintiffs and Roberts only wanted to empower Republican donors I'm sure.

[Parkbandit]

Unions were empowered by Citizens United too. They'd been declining in power beforehand. Sort of an unintended consequence, because the Republican plaintiffs and Roberts only wanted to empower Republican donors I'm sure.

lol.

[Back]

Tying this to the oligarchy thread... http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746


The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.


So concludes a recent study (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Emgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf) by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.


Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:


Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.


In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.


The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.


"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:


When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.


They conclude:


Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.



Eric Zuess, writing (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/15/the-contradictions-of-the-american-electorate/) in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.


"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."


This is the "Duh Report", says (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/218858/the-duh-report-study-says-america-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy/) Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."

[waywardgs]

It seems to me that this is one issue that crosses a lot of divides between conservatives and liberals , deme and republicans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a movement like this get some legs on a grassroots level. I'd be on board. It's still We The People, even if we bicker ad nauseum about everything else under the sun.

[Warriorbird]

lol.

Do you REALLY think Roberts wanted to hand unions their biggest win in 30 years? I don't. I don't think it's unreasonable or unreasonably partisan.


It seems to me that this is one issue that crosses a lot of divides between conservatives and liberals , deme and republicans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a movement like this get some legs on a grassroots level. I'd be on board. It's still We The People, even if we bicker ad nauseum about everything else under the sun.

I'm sure Occupy and the Tea Party might've found common ground around it.

[Parkbandit]

Do you REALLY think Roberts wanted to hand unions their biggest win in 30 years? I don't. I don't think it's unreasonable or unreasonably partisan.


I think you view Robert's decision as highly partisan, which triggered my "lol" at you.

[Jarvan]

It seems to me that this is one issue that crosses a lot of divides between conservatives and liberals , deme and republicans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a movement like this get some legs on a grassroots level. I'd be on board. It's still We The People, even if we bicker ad nauseum about everything else under the sun.

I also want Term Limits. I doubt that will ever happen tho.

[Tgo01]

It seems to me that this is one issue that crosses a lot of divides between conservatives and liberals , deme and republicans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a movement like this get some legs on a grassroots level. I'd be on board. It's still We The People, even if we bicker ad nauseum about everything else under the sun.

The Citizens United case was a tough one for me. On the one hand corporations do and should receive many of the benefits that persons do. Do we really want to live in a country where the government can raid a business anytime they want? Or to impose a 100 billion dollar fine because the company might have littered a little bit? Or to close a company down without a trial? The answer to all of these questions should be no which is why businesses are afforded many of the same rights as people.

As I said though the Citizens United case was tough because corporations have a lot more money to throw around in our elections than most regular folk do. Then again there are some rich people out there who can easily afford to give away a hundred million dollars if they truly wanted to so why is that person allowed to donate more money to political causes than the average shmuck on the street who can only afford to donate 5 dollars to his cause?

The simpler answer seems to be to put limits on donations. Or universal surveillance.

[kutter]

Something tells me if the we cannot get people motivated for a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget, something nearly every one in the country agrees should happen, except for politicians of course, then the likelihood of getting this done is pretty much zero.

[Wrathbringer]

I also want Term Limits. I doubt that will ever happen tho.

Term limits = more politicians trying to squeeze in more bribes and legislation before their time is up.

[Warriorbird]

I think you view Robert's decision as highly partisan, which triggered my "lol" at you.

He's said he felt Republican pressure, associated with the plaintiff being connected to Dick Armey. Some people saw that as why he then choose to declare the ACA a tax, as a thumb of his nose at people trying to push him around.


Something tells me if the we cannot get people motivated for a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget, something nearly every one in the country agrees should happen, except for politicians of course, then the likelihood of getting this done is pretty much zero.

Quite right. Politicians rarely go against their own interests.

[Parkbandit]

Something tells me if the we cannot get people motivated for a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget, something nearly every one in the country agrees should happen, except for politicians of course, then the likelihood of getting this done is pretty much zero.

I don't think there is as much agreement to a balanced budget as you think there is.

And even if there was, politicians would stop it anyway because that would limit their power. Same with simplifying the tax code, term limits, etc...

[Parkbandit]

He's said he felt Republican pressure, associated with the plaintiff being connected to Dick Armey. Some people saw that as why he then choose to declare the ACA a tax, as a thumb of his nose at people trying to push him around.


I'm sure he felt far more "Republican pressure" about Obamacare.. and look at his decision there.

Sometimes.. decisions are actually based upon law and the Constitution. I may not agree with his decision about Obamacare or Citizens United.. but I can see how he came to his decision and wouldn't just chalk it up to politics because I disagree with the outcome.

[waywardgs]

Sometimes even the constitution is wrong. That's why we have amendments.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure he felt far more "Republican pressure" about Obamacare.. and look at his decision there.

Sometimes.. decisions are actually based upon law and the Constitution. I may not agree with his decision about Obamacare or Citizens United.. but I can see how he came to his decision and wouldn't just chalk it up to politics because I disagree with the outcome.

I only consider it because it is exceedingly rare for a Justice to ever say anything like that.

[Latrinsorm]

The leader of the movement, Cobb, said he expects it to take about ten years to build grassroots support and see it successfully enacted.10 years seems pretty reasonable, especially because it gives 3 Presidential elections to see the results of Citizens.
14th Amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Meant to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision which said Blacks were not considered citizens and enjoyed none of the rights under the Constitution. Although off the top of my head I can't think of any other example.I agree that it was in opposition of Scott, but it feels more like the primary motivation was in opposition to the Confederacy, which had a lot more immediate and tangible impact on people than some musty Supreme Court decision.
Or universal surveillance.Goes without saying, hijo.

[Tisket]

I agree 100%, also the unions. I don't think ANY special interest should be able to buy elections. All these "fundraisers" are a bullshit waste of time.

Interestingly enough, at least to me, nonprofits would be included as well. They are already prohibited from engaging in campaign activity or they risk losing their tax exempt status.