Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Human Worth Amendment

Posted 7 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 1:47 p.m. EST by CorporationNotPerson (129)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Human Worth Amendment:

  1. All people are of equal worth an value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human-beings, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

  2. A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person and, therefore, is not entitled to the same rights and protections afforded to a person as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

84 Comments

84 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

Honestly - I think simpler is better to overrule citizens united:
1) Corporations are not people

2) Money is not free speech

The real key is not the words - it is the HOW. Where will we address the HOW. I would suggest everyone writing their congressman & senators & any newspapers. And getting two others to do it. and get them to get two others .......

Setting up a database on published articles about CU sins

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

A Constitutional Amendment will be required, because the Supreme Court has ruled that, Constitutionally: (1) Corporations are people and (2) Money is free speech. The Human Worth Amendment will make it clear to the Supreme Court that: (1) Corporations are not people and (2) People are of equal worth and value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human-beings, unconditionally and unexceptionally. "We the people.." will, once and for all, be of equal worth and value, regardless of sex, race, creed, wealth, education, etc.

[-] 1 points by PhilArthur (54) 7 years ago

ABSOLUTELY!!! Allow the people to properly regulate the activities of corporations and their activities through people elected representatives. Cut out the corporate paid lobbying for access to our tax dollars... people lobby their representatives, property can't lobby a person.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

PhilArthur, We are in agreement!

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 7 years ago

Number two needs to be as specific as humanely possible.

It needs to say: All things that are abstract concepts, non living things or animals that are not human are not considered people

[-] 1 points by whynotus (15) 7 years ago

1.Take citizenship away from corporations.

  1. Eliminate the corporate income tax and in exchange make it illegal for a corporation to contribute to ANY political campaign.
  2. Make all such contributions a felony bribe.
  3. Individuals cannot contribute to a candidate they cannot legally vote for and make all such contributions a felony bribe.
  4. Limit all contributions to $3000.00 IT IS TIME TO TAKE BACK WASHINGTON FROM WALL STREET!
[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

I like it, but it seems redundant. If the constitution were enforced, then the rights that are there would pretty much function in compliance with what you write.

http://www.articlevmeeting.info/

We need an Article V convention.

Congress is very afraid of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

How would "Article V" Constitutionally clarify for the Supreme Court that a corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person and, therefore, does not have the rights and protections afforded to a person? The Supreme Court initially made the ruling that a corporation = a person in the 1880's and, more recently, ruled that the 1st Amendment rights are afforded to corporations because a corporate entity, in and of itself, is a person. Also, no where in the Constitution does it state, as our founding father's put it, that "all men are created equal?" It seems that, first, it must be established Constitutionally that all people are equal and, second, a corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

The constitution is over the supreme court. When the constitution is amended the supreme court has the job of seeing the laws revised to conform.----

There is no reason to accept that any of the supreme court can faithfully interpret the constitution. Therefore it is very likely that Article III will be addressed, "with standing over" article III in certain conditions, like now.--

Basically Article V can deal with the corporate personhood issue. There is far too much conflict of interest to let the supremes do it.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

ChristoperABrown,

Interested. How will Article V deal with the corporate personhood issue?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Calling for the "Human Worth Amendment" in order to take it out of the Supreme Court's hands.

[-] 1 points by larryathome (161) from Red Bank, NJ 7 years ago

We are working on building up to an article V convention.

http://www.articlevmeeting.info/

If people want change, than we need to facilitate it.

We need to remember that Citizens United was basically told that our elections can be bought and sold. That is tragic to all of us.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

And perhaps the topic, " Human Worth Amendment" and its validity constitutionally, seems a good thing to place in the rules of corporations on the federal constitutional level. States would have to accept this. Therein might be a difficulty with ratificaiton. However, there is no chance any other way so it must be tried. States like Delaware favor corporations so many corporations are formed there to escape liabilities other states recognize corporations have.--

Accordingly, corporations have been exploiting states rights with regard to the states being allowed different legal structures controlling corporations.

[-] 1 points by larryathome (161) from Red Bank, NJ 7 years ago

Last I checked, corporations do not have a head, arms and legs, yet like a human, they will screw as many people as they can. The definition of an individual and the definition of a corporation is the very first step in moral definition. Great idea.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

There is a fact that the US is structured like Old England in one simple way. The states are equivilant to baronages, and the federal government is like the king. The Magna Carta shows the barons coming together to create accountabilty amongst themselves upon the complaint of anyone wronged or deprived of the rights described in the clauses of the charter.-----

So the baron entities (states) are actiing a bit collusively and exploiting states rights and powers to the detriment of the people.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

worker should be able to open discuss their wage and the profits and losses of the company they work with

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

In a socialist nation, yes. In a capitalist nation, the worker finds an employer that will do so so they can assure their wages and conditions are reasonable.----

In a capitalist nation the abuse employer cannot find employees IF the government and courts are operating constitutionally in this capitalist naton.--

They are not. Hijacked by a completely different issues. One taboo in western society.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

the people at the business can be those courts

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

No, a court needs to be impartial and independent. The problem is they are not. We need to amend the constitution in a way which ends that and prevents it.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

How about saying this:

1) All people have the right to themselves and their body 2) All people have the right to the fruits of their labor.

[-] 1 points by IndyGuy (81) 7 years ago

All people ARE NOT of equal worth and value to society.

Some people are lazy. Some people are hard working and ambitious.

People have equal rights under the law, but not all people are equal.

Even among the the groups of protesters, some animals are more equal than others.

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 7 years ago

Everyone has equal opportunity under the law, but there is, nor should there be laws dictating outcomes.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

People are equal in the sense that they are human beings. You would dispute that point?

[-] 1 points by IndyGuy (81) 7 years ago

We are humans, but we are not equal.

Some people have superior abilities. Some have no ability. As I said, some are lazy, some are hard working.

You seem to be implying that outcomes should be equal solely based on the fact that people are "human". It doesn't work that way, nor should it. We are not communists.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

But we are all human-beings and, in that respect, of equal worth intrinsically.

[-] 1 points by IndyGuy (81) 7 years ago

Is Charles Manson of equal worth as you?

Was Gaddafi of equal worth as you? Was Osama bin Laden of equal worth?

By your twisted logic, people like Hitler and Pol Pot are of equal worth as anyone else.

You need to remove childish emotionalism from your political views.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

They were all human beings and, intrinsically, are of equal worth and value - but their actions are despicable and they should be held accountable for them.

I think OurTimes2011 (see above) described this point very well:

"You just do not get it. Really, you are simply here to try to delay things.

Let me try to help you out, again. I know this is radical stuff for a royalist and tory, but, try to keep up.

This is drawn from Quaker thought, a religious group critical to the start of America. It is where the all men created equal line of thought comes from. Several key founding fathers were Quakers or Quaker related (Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc. You know who they were, right?)

Remember that the American Revolution was a declaration that the king was not better than all other humans. Therefore, the king did not get to determine the fate for everyone in society. People can decide for themselves. (This is called democracy, a radical, left wing thought in 1776.) Quakers also believe it possible to have a direct experience of God without the mediation of clergy. One of their most radical innovations was a greater, nearly equal, role for women and everyone else. If men were broadly equal, then women had to be, and Blacks, and Hispanics, Asians, Natives, everybody else, too.

All humans are equal. But artificial, man made creations like corporations are not human, so they do not deserve the same rights as humans, period. Corporations exist to serve people. People do not exist for the sake of corporations, despite what the racist right thinks."

[-] 1 points by IndyGuy (81) 7 years ago

Corporations are groups of people. In our legal system they are entitled to "rights". They are entitled to free speech rights just as any individual.

Corporations do not exist to serve people. They exist to make a profit for their shareholders. In order to make a profit they must produce either goods or services that people need and would like to purchase.

We are not communists. Corporations are not the enemy.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Were the founding father's of these United States of America "communists" when they declared that "all men are created equal?" When they used the word "men" -- do you think they were referring to a corporate entity, a legal body formed and authorized by law to act as a person "not to serve people... [but] to make a profit for their shareholders?" I don't think so.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

Racist right? I have a black congressman, and he is far more racist than any conservative that I know.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

So you would hold a child molester on the same plane as a doctor? They're both humans.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

This is an argument that I often hear. My response: Separate the act from the person. They are both human beings. One person has engage in a crime, child molesting, and must be held accountable for his/her actions. The others person's occupation is a doctor. A doctor is a person too. Just because a person is a doctor does not make him/her intrinsically of more value than any other person...at least in terms of being a human being.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

You can't separate the act from the person. Unless you're just stating a human is a human. For that I'd say "What's your point?"

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Do you believe that, intrinsically, people are equal in worth and value in themselves, simply by being human-beings? Some don't believe that.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

And you do realize the +humans are going to start cracking the skulls of the -humans. Can't wait for it.;

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

No, I don't. It's the actions of the individual that determines their value in society. Not just being.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Person = Person.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

Yes. Person = Person. Person and Person don't equal the same value.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

You have a problem with the founding father's of these United Stated of America. In their day, as written in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal." Today, this must be stated Constitutionally: "All people are of equal worth and value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human-beings, unconditionally and unexceptionally." You've got a problem with what made the United States of America GREAT!

OurTimes2011 (see above) described this point very well:

"You just do not get it. Really, you are simply here to try to delay things.

Let me try to help you out, again. I know this is radical stuff for a royalist and tory, but, try to keep up.

This is drawn from Quaker thought, a religious group critical to the start of America. It is where the all men created equal line of thought comes from. Several key founding fathers were Quakers or Quaker related (Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc. You know who they were, right?)

Remember that the American Revolution was a declaration that the king was not better than all other humans. Therefore, the king did not get to determine the fate for everyone in society. People can decide for themselves. (This is called democracy, a radical, left wing thought in 1776.) Quakers also believe it possible to have a direct experience of God without the mediation of clergy. One of their most radical innovations was a greater, nearly equal, role for women and everyone else. If men were broadly equal, then women had to be, and Blacks, and Hispanics, Asians, Natives, everybody else, too.

All humans are equal. But artificial, man made creations like corporations are not human, so they do not deserve the same rights as humans, period. Corporations exist to serve people. People do not exist for the sake of corporations, despite what the racist right thinks."

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

WOW. You really are dense. I have already told you that YES, A HUMAN = A HUMAN! F**$ your dumb. All persons are not equal value. Do you agree with that?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

dantes44,

No, I do not agree with your statement: "All persons are not equal value."

All people are of equal worth and value, intrinsically, solely on the basis of being human-beings. You have referred to me as "dense" and "dumb." While, in your eyes, I am "dense" and "dumb" - that does not make me any less or more of a person than you. You may be more intelligent than me, but as human-beings, intrinsically, we are of equal worth and value.

As I have stated before, there are some that will not concede, as you have, that "A HUMAN = A HUMAN." Just look at some of the posts on this Occupy Wall Street Forum for proof. As you know, some believe that - based on a person's race/ethnicity or religious beliefs - one person is not equal to the other in worth or value. The extermination of Jewish people by Nazi Germany, as you know, was partly accomplished by the mistaken belief by Nazis that Jewish people were not human-beings.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of equal meaning that, to be of equal worth and value, a person must have the same amount of money, education, abilities, achievements (etc.) as another person. I am saying all people are of equal worth and value in themselves, not based on having the same amount of money, education, abilities, achievements (etc.). All people are equal dignities....even if you believe that this one person, me, is "dense" and "dumb."

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

"People do not exist for the sake of corporations, despite what the racist right thinks."

Who is the party that uses 'Uncle Tom' 'OREO' 'KAPO' and sell out pretty much daily.

If an afro american, hispanic, or any other minority leaves the Democrat plantation you little pieces of shit are vile. You won't say anything without a group of your lemmings standing by though. Fucking pussies.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

"Today, this must be stated Constitutionally: "All people are of equal worth and value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human-beings,"

This is so F'ing stupid. How old are you? If you're over senior year of high school PLEASE tell me where you went so my family can avoid it.

CNP,

You have to hire a babysitter, will you go with the felon or the honor roll student.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Both are persons, of equal worth and value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human beings. Intrinsically, both the felon and the honor roll student are equal in that they are human beings. One has engaged in illegal behavior and must be held accountable. The other has very good grades. I will not say that one is a person and the other is not a person. One is a person who has committed a felony, the other person is an honor roll student. In answering your question, based on the limited information you have provided, I would hire the honor roll student as a babysitter over someone who has a felony. That does not make the the felon less a person than the honor roll student. As people, they are of equal worth and value in themselves, solely on the basis of being human-beings, unconditionally and unexceptionally. A person who engaged in a felony does not make him/her less or more of a human-being that the honor roll student. As human beings, they are of equal worth and value in themselves. Both persons of equal dignities. The acts of the person who engaged in a felony, as it relates to being a babysitter, are considered in relation to the honor roll student who has not engaged in a felony. Both are persons of equal worth as human beings, unconditionally and unexceptionally. You seem to be having difficulty separating a person's intrinsic worth vs. a person's actions. Some people make wrong decisions, but that does not mean that they are more or less human - of equal worth and value, intrinsically. In making a decision regarding who to hire as a babysitter, I would have to take their actions/judgment into account - but they are both of equal worth and value as human beings.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

CNP,

"all men are created equal." Yes, they are. But you seem to think that that equation should be a standard throughout life. EVERYBODY IS NOT F'ING EQUAL!!!

"People can decide for themselves. " And some did, and made the wrong decision. Take out a loan for this or that and they know damn well they can't pay it back. Then they are responsible.

"All humans are equal."

Again and again with this stupid as5 statement. No sh*t humans are humans.

Simple question...you're running a team, 1 player has both legs, the 2nd only has 1. They're both human. Which would you choose to add more value to your team?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

I'll say it again. In your question, you are basing the equality of a person on his/her ability. I am saying that, as a human being, a person with one leg and a person with two are of equal worth and value in themselves, regardless of whether one is able to play football well or not. Do you believe that Donald Trump is of more worth or value as a person, solely on the basis of his/her being a human-being, than a newborn baby? Surely, Donald Trump has more money than a newborn baby but, as humans, they are equal dignities.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

In your question, you are basing the equality of a person on his/her ability. I am saying that, as a human being, a person with one leg and a person with two are of equal worth and value in themselves, regardless of whether one is able to play football well or not. Do you believe that Donald Trump is of more worth or value as a person, solely on the basis of his/her being a human-being, than a newborn baby? Surely, Donald Trump has more money than a newborn baby but, as humans, they are equal dignities.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

Since I didn't see a reply option on CNP's post.....you have to be f'ing with me. No one can believe that. If you're a sock, I give you great credit. If you're for real, Lord help us.

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 7 years ago

Yeah what is with people trying to say a corporation is a person. What is the logic of sense of that

They must gain something but what is it

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

The rights and protections of a person, while hiding behind laws that limit personal liability. Have their cake and eat it too.

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 7 years ago

Do you want validation of your belief and turn it in to knowledge. watch this, it completly expains our crash

http://vimeo.com/25142692

It's long at least watch enough to get the idea

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 7 years ago

CorporateNotPerson,

Americans have the right to freedom of association and to assembly, so on what basis does a group of Americans not have the same rights? Sorry dude.

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 7 years ago

I'll bet ten bucks you are union

So I guess you want your union to be a person too

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

What would you suggest?

[-] 1 points by enlightened (177) 7 years ago

About what?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

PlasmaStorm,

A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person. End corporate person-hood.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

What does equal worth mean? Does that mean we race, but we all tie for first? Only problem with that is that then we also tie for last.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

You just do not get it. Really, you are simply here to try to delay things.

Let me try to help you out, again. I know this is radical stuff for a royalist and tory, but, try to keep up.

This is drawn from Quaker thought, a religious group critical to the start of America. It is where the all men created equal line of thought comes from. Several key founding fathers were Quakers or Quaker related (Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc. You know who they were, right?)

Remember that the American Revolution was a declaration that the king was not better than all other humans. Therefore, the king did not get to determine the fate for everyone in society. People can decide for themselves. (This is called democracy, a radical, left wing thought in 1776.) Quakers also believe it possible to have a direct experience of God without the mediation of clergy. One of their most radical innovations was a greater, nearly equal, role for women and everyone else. If men were broadly equal, then women had to be, and Blacks, and Hispanics, Asians, Natives, everybody else, too.

All humans are equal. But artificial, man made creations like corporations are not human, so they do not deserve the same rights as humans, period. Corporations exist to serve people. People do not exist for the sake of corporations, despite what the racist right thinks.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Well said OurTimes2011. Thank you.

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

Who the hell are you to say who I am. Sorry for the foul language, but I get really pissed when people put words in my mouth or tell me who I am when they don't know me. The left has a really nasty habit of that. And as far as famous political Quakers, you forgot Richard Nixon, fyi. And you don't need to school me on American history. I know full well who the Quakers were and are. I fully understand the issues we had with King George, which would be the same issues I would have if I had been alive back then. Also, being an Episcopalian, I don't need anyone to intervene on my behalf to get a message to my God. My wife is the full equal of me, as are blacks, Hispanics, Asians, natives and everybody else. Just remember equality is a start, but sadly, too many give up that right.

You just showed how stupid an equal person can be.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

Another example of the Jedi mind trick at work, my young apprentice.

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

Your misplaced condescending attitude doesn't work with me

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Intrinsically, Person = Person. People may have different professions, behave well or badly, make different amounts of money, be of different age, gender, etc. It's not a hard concept. One thing that a doctor and a janitor have in common is that they are both people, and simply on the basis of being human-beings, are of equal worth and value in themselves.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

That's all well and good, but who says there are different values for people? Surely, that can't be what this is all about, is it?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

As you can see from the posts, some people disagree that people are of equal worth and value in themselves, just on the basis of being human-beings. Can you believe that KnowkedgeableFellow? And being a KnowledgeableFellow, what would it mean in our society if people were treated as equal in worth and value in themselves, simply based on the fact that - as human-beings - they are intrinsically equal?

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 7 years ago

I am a capitalist and a free marketer. And I treat people as if they have equal value.....unless they show me otherwise.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago
  1. No, they're not. You're not special. You're not unique. Unless you have done something to merit that designation.
[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

Simply on the basis of being a human-being. Hard concept for some.

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 7 years ago

No, it's not. It's silly. A human is a human. Brilliant.

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

For some, considering all people as being of equal worth and value in themselves, simply because they are all human beings, is not readily accepted. That you are a person and that I am a person - simply of the basis of being human-beings of equal worth and value intrinsically - is not brilliant, it just makes sense. But look at some of the posts. Some are arguing that one human and another human, intrinsically, are not both humans.