Members of the House of Representatives Support Plan to Limit First Amendment Rights

[lawrocket 3]

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi - the House minority leader - announced her support of a plan to supersede the Citizens United case by way of what is titled a "People's Rights Amendment."

It says:

Quote

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

Said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, "“It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights."

Now, I for one appreciate that they are actually looking at advancing a Constitutional amendment, which is actually the correct procedure for such a thing.

But what I don't appreciate is that we see the actions of a government that is looking to take away freedoms.

And how's this for scary - it doesn't limit the taking of freedoms to the freedom of speech. Nope. It exempts corporations from protections of due process, Fourth Amendment, etc.

What's this mean to you? If you work for a corporation, that corporation's payroll can be seized by the government without due process. The corporations asset can be seized. The corporation can be nationalized. AT&T's phone records? They can be seized. And without recourse because, as McGovern said, "all corporate entities...are not people with constitutional rights."

Who does that include? How about NBC, CBS and CNN? Your health insurance? Yep, you're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that has no legal protections. Corporations are SO bad that we want to make sure you all buy health insurance from them.

So, who here is in favor of loosening rights?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Like so many things, I'll need to think on this some more. I find it interesting that the first section seems to clarify that the 2nd amendment is a right to individuals, not states or their militias. I expect that would cause some issues with it passing.

I don't see much need for more restrictions. I do see a need to allow people the natural consequences of their actions so they can learn from their mistakes. But that's another discussion.

I see your point about nationalization and such. I'm pretty sure the rights of individuals would come into play to avoid that, but not certain. Imminent domain is a dangerous thing.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

The only limiting factor that I could see is that natural persons who own stock may have a claim. But it is SO broad in its scope as to be, in my mind, pretty dangerous.

I also note that this is ALSO a fine opportunity to grant favors and open the door to even more lobbying. Let's say I'm Pharma. The companies my organization represents are without protections. Congress can actually provide protections that the Constitution does not. So I go lobby Congress for a law providing pharmaceutical manufacturers with additional protections because they are so important to the country.

It's the way it will happen if this passes. There will be no right to lobby. And what happens when something is made illegal? It goes underground, the price goes up, and a lot of money is there to be made by those who would run the black market of political influence.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

It's super scary - especially with the current admin's habit of passing sweeping laws and then giving out preferential 'exceptions' to their friends and voting blocks.

It's a clear power grab and scary as hell.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

the last time we amended the Constitution to remove rights, it didn't work out too well for the nation. I suspect a well worded poll should show great support for ending corporation rights, but I wonder how great the appetite is for amendments that take away rather than protect rights.

And it does appear that it might backfire in their opposition to individual gun rights.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi - the House minority leader - announced her support of a plan to supersede the Citizens United case by way of what is titled a "People's Rights Amendment."

It says:

Quote

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

Said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, "“It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights."

Now, I for one appreciate that they are actually looking at advancing a Constitutional amendment, which is actually the correct procedure for such a thing.

But what I don't appreciate is that we see the actions of a government that is looking to take away freedoms.

And how's this for scary - it doesn't limit the taking of freedoms to the freedom of speech. Nope. It exempts corporations from protections of due process, Fourth Amendment, etc.

What's this mean to you? If you work for a corporation, that corporation's payroll can be seized by the government without due process. The corporations asset can be seized. The corporation can be nationalized. AT&T's phone records? They can be seized. And without recourse because, as McGovern said, "all corporate entities...are not people with constitutional rights."

Who does that include? How about NBC, CBS and CNN? Your health insurance? Yep, you're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that has no legal protections. Corporations are SO bad that we want to make sure you all buy health insurance from them.

So, who here is in favor of loosening rights?

I'm very surprized that there has been very little discussion on your topic. I guess we are more involved with the Travon Martins of the world to discuss this topic which I believe is far more important.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

I wouldn't support such an amendment, as there is way too much scope for the law of unintended consequences. Even after Citizens United, I'm not sure there is a problem that needs solving, and I'm quite sure such a broad brush would raise more problems than it solves. Kind of like the Patriot Act.

Corporations don't have all the rights of citizens, for example they can't vote (at least, not directly) and they can't be sent to prison, though they can be fined. If time reveals a serious problem with the consequences of Citizens United, surely a more focused remedy could be proposed.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[diablopilot 2]

The whole theory of legislating to counter act legislation that has already been approved is whacked.

What kindergarden level politics is this country sinking to? Don't like how the vote went? Write a bill that counters the one that was just passed. Sore losers.


Suspect the vote won't go your way? Run out of the state for a while to try to bring everything to a halt till you get your way. The equivalent of a political temper tantrum.

Grow the fuck up DC.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[quade 4]

Actually, the system is working exactly as intended.

It's a system of checks and balances. When one of the three branches does something, the other two are supposed to look at it and see if it's a good idea or not and if not, take action if appropriate.

Since an Amendment is such a huge change, I think it's highly unlikely it will happen, but to not explore the idea that maybe a Supreme Court decision wasn't in the best interest of the general population as a whole would be shirking their duties.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 3]

Anytime any law is either amended or repealed- a very common occurrence in Congress as well as every legislature in the u.s., it's done via subsequent legislation. Every time the us constitution has been changed, even if only to clarify or repeal an existing provision, it's done via adding a new amendment. Sorry, but that's simply how it's done.

This is nothing new- it's the way it's been done in the US from the beginning of the nation.

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi - the House minority leader - announced her support of a plan to supersede the Citizens United case by way of what is titled a "People's Rights Amendment."

It says:

Quote

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

Said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, "“It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights."

Now, I for one appreciate that they are actually looking at advancing a Constitutional amendment, which is actually the correct procedure for such a thing.

But what I don't appreciate is that we see the actions of a government that is looking to take away freedoms.

And how's this for scary - it doesn't limit the taking of freedoms to the freedom of speech. Nope. It exempts corporations from protections of due process, Fourth Amendment, etc.

What's this mean to you? If you work for a corporation, that corporation's payroll can be seized by the government without due process. The corporations asset can be seized. The corporation can be nationalized. AT&T's phone records? They can be seized. And without recourse because, as McGovern said, "all corporate entities...are not people with constitutional rights."

Who does that include? How about NBC, CBS and CNN? Your health insurance? Yep, you're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that has no legal protections. Corporations are SO bad that we want to make sure you all buy health insurance from them.

So, who here is in favor of loosening rights?

The feds already did this with GM. Told the bond holders, and stock holders to go to hell.

[kallend 2,182]

The very simple fact is that corporations, unions, LLCs, partnerships, etc. are NOT people.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, John. It is not a "natural person."

This is the same sort of semantics that calls you a natural citizen. Sure, you can go throug the process of "naturalization" but calling something "natural" does not make it "natural."

So I take it that you, of all people, know that "natural" is a bullshit word? Or does calling the callingthe "alien" "natural" convey certaoin things?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

Naturally!

[quade 4]

Quote

Yes, John. It is not a "natural person."

This is the same sort of semantics that calls you a natural citizen. Sure, you can go throug the process of "naturalization" but calling something "natural" does not make it "natural."

So I take it that you, of all people, know that "natural" is a bullshit word? Or does calling the callingthe "alien" "natural" convey certaoin things?

Fine, then remove the word "natural."

Is a corporation a "person"? Please tell me in what language a corporation is a person.

I have a link to the OED if you need it.

BTW, did John use the phrase "natural person" in the post yours is replying to?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

You are correct. Corporations are not "people." They are one or more people who form a business, I guess that in order t ensure that only wealthy individuals have voices we should ensure that groups of people not get together for anything.

I am absolutely. Stunned that libnerals and populaists think that taking away free speech rights from groups of people is a good idea. I understand it - hating corporations is easy. It's not hating any person, right. One can certainly look at, say, the Uninsured Relative Workshop and know that there is not single person one would identift with it.

So let's say that there happebed to be a figured for the Uninsured Relative Works. And let's say that some FAA regulation that would require the Uninsured Relative Workshop to do something. What if that figurehead spoke out about it as an individual? It would easily be argued that the individual (who doesn't exist because we're talking about a corporation - a faceless entity with no personal anything) could be fined or imprisoned because that person was criminally assuming the role of a corporationand speaking on its behalf, and there is no right to do that.

Also, Paul, if corporations are not people then they cannot speak, anyway. Or does it so happen that that are groups of people who speak through it?

Finally - John did not say "natural person," the proposed Amendment refers to "natural person," not John. If you want to talk about people then start a thread. But the original topic was "natural person," let John forget about the "natural" part. I tred to recenter it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Balderdash.

"A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation
(emphasis mine)

What you're essentially advocating is that as long as a person can afford it, he can have twice (or more) the rights as a person that can't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are correct. Corporations are not "people." They are one or more people who form a business, I guess that in order t ensure that only wealthy individuals have voices we should ensure that groups of people not get together for anything.

This is the part that our left leaning people seem to fail to get when getting angry about corporate personhood. The NRA, AARP, and various unions are examples of powerful entities made up of millions of fairly powerless persons.

If these groups don't have a right to speech, then you leave influence to people like Soros and the Koch brothers.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What you're essentially advocating is that as long as a person can afford it, he can have twice (or more) the rights as a person that can't.

No. A corporation cannot vote and I am not advocating that a corporation be given that right. However, you have more than one voice, Paul. I enjoy your postings on here. You also post stuff on Facebook which I enjoy. And I've read futurecam. Etc. How many voices and fora does Paul Quade have? You must be filthy rich if you have so many different voices! Are you a part of USPA? Whoa! Why? Why does the USPA speak for you? The AOPA? Do you belong to that? How about the Screenwriters Guild? Writers Guild of America? How about those?

How many voices do you need, Paul? You are one person with several different voices in many different forms and in different fora.

But let us take a look at, say, Starbucks. Starbucks was "boycotted" a few weeks ago by an anti-gun group. Why? What if someone says, "Starbucks adds arsenic to coffee." What could Starbucks do at that point? Could Starbucks issue a statement? What if there was no right to it? How about Starbucks filing a lawsuit? Nope. Can't do that and have standing.

How about each of the holders of its 753.4 million outstanding shares of stock file a lawsuit for the diminution of value? Or each of the holders of the 753.4 million shares of outstanding stock issue a press release about the gun policy?

Set aside the anti-corporate for a little while and consider the consequences and workability of such proposals. Want to ban corporations? Do it. But to say that corporations shall have no rights is to subvert the rights of every individual with an interest in those companies.

Corporations are not the headless monsters that they are made out to be. Want to curtail their interests? Put every greased politician in the pokey.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Yes, John. It is not a "natural person."

This is the same sort of semantics that calls you a natural citizen. Sure, you can go throug the process of "naturalization" but calling something "natural" does not make it "natural."

So I take it that you, of all people, know that "natural" is a bullshit word? Or does calling the callingthe "alien" "natural" convey certaoin things?

IIRC, the Constitution does not begin with:

"We the natural born persons..."

It clearly refers to PEOPLE.

No PERSON is being deprived of anything if corporations and unions are not considered to be PEOPLE (which they are not).

How many legs does a dog have if you call the leg a tail?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If these groups don't have a right to speech, then you leave influence to people like Soros and the Koch brothers.

Absolutely. It's why I'm shocked (but not surprised) that liberals (the ones who are so vocally about free speech, freedom of petition, freedom of association, etc) are in favor of the most anti-populist agenda item I have ever seen.

e pluribus unum is yet another antiquated philosophical slogan formed by dead white men.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Okay...then why can't we sue corporations for torture?

Why is a corporation considered a person in donations to campaigns, but not a person when it comes to being held responsible for acts against humanity?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How many legs does a dog have if you call the leg a tail?

Four legs. I think it a ridiculous comparison, but okay. I'll play.

Are you a member of AOPA, John? If so, why?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

A corporation cannot be imprisoned (though its officers and directors frequently are). But a corporation can be fined. A corporation can be put into receivership. A corporation can be dissolved.

But since we're on that subject, Paul - if a corporation is not a person, do you therefore agree that it should not be taxed?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

But since we're on that subject, Paul - if a corporation is not a person, do you therefore agree that it should not be taxed?

Goods and services are taxed and they're not people (well, most of the time). Nice try though.

Whoever on god's green Earth ever said only people could be taxed? That's certainly not something supported in history all the way back to the dawn of time, or taxes, whichever came first.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver