Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Movetoamend.org! End corporate personhood, repeal Citizens United

Posted 12 months ago on April 17, 2013, 1:02 p.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

https://movetoamend.org/new-internet-video-move-amend

New Internet Video by Move to Amend April 16, 2013

Move to Amend, the national coalition to amend the US Constitution and end corporate personhood, has launched a new series of videos to promote their campaign. These short and edgy videos will be released once a week spread over six weeks starting today. Move to Amend believes that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are people entitled to constitutional rights.

“Corporate personhood is not an inconsequential legal technicality. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a ‘legal person’ with 14th Amendment protections before they granted full personhood to African-Americans, immigrants, natives, or women”, states David Cobb, a spokesperson for Move to Amend.

The videos were written by filmmaker Dennis Trainor, Jr., director and producer of American Autumn: an OccuDoc, and comedian Lee Camp. The clips use absurdist humor to draw attention to the ridiculous notion that corporations can claim rights under the Constitution.

Move to Amend’s “We the People Amendment” was introduced in Congress in February by Representative Rick Nolan (MN) and Mark Pocan (WI).

22 Comments

22 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20391) from South Burlington, VT 12 months ago

I'm not an attorney, and I've seen arguments both for and against some of the other amendment proposals. But as a matter of general principle, no one can in good faith, insist that corporations do have tongues, or should be accorded Constitutional protections.

That is absurd.

Given that that is absurd, we know, without a doubt that the members of the Supreme Court have indeed, acted in a manner that is not consistent with the good faith of the people.

And by this we know, a Constitutional Amendment becomes necessary. It becomes necessary to provide clarity regarding the will of the people, to govern ourselves rather than abdicate that authority to corporations, which we know, do not have tongues.

It becomes necessary to provide clarity to the principles that guide our laws and jurist prudence, under which we will all live.

And it becomes necessary to provide curbs, in the form of sweeping national rebuke, to those berobed scholars of law, who would so abuse the public and our electoral system, with an unprecedented tidal wave of campaign cash such as the earth and its inhabitants have never known.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

And we know THIS Scotus has "so abused the public" repeatedly andwith so much as a reach around.

But they serve for life so they are the most difficult to get rid of.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 12 months ago

All true, but why would we think congress would reverse what it has seen done in its interest or the interest of corporate contributors?

With ART5, the people of the states override the congress, senate and president. We only need to prepare by determining constitutional intent, imposing it lawfully on state legislators testing them with initiative and referendum for ART5 and preparatory amendment.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20391) from South Burlington, VT 12 months ago

Some members of Congress are I think whole heartedly behind a measure that amends the Constitution and so limits campaign contributions.

The process of amending the Constitution is going to require the cooperation of legislators one way or the other:

  • Amendments may be proposed by either:

    • two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
    • by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
  • To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:

    • the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
    • state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
  • Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.

The only way the People override the federal bureaucracy is with the cooperation of a significant number of state legislators. If we can create the kind of grass roots pressure, which is what is required, to make sufficient numbers of state legislators amenable to the process, then it seems reasonable to assume at that point the federal reps of those states will also get on board, if they have any intent of keeping their jobs.

With sufficient public scrutiny of the process itself, and the language contained in the amendment up for ratification, it should be possible to secure the measure from linguistic sabotage.

If that fails, there is always the possibility of bloody revolution, which will never be justified - unless it is victorious.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 12 months ago

wiki has already been implicated in treason with misinformation.

ARTICLE V "Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used. From Wiki original text of Article V"

Congress does not have discretion when 3/4 of the states are ratifying. That clause is in the case of difficult ratifications, assuming the congress is willing to actually help.

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."

"may be proposed" means they could, if no one objected, or something like that. The words "shall" or "must" would be used if there was authority over the states.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

Yeah man. Sounds easy "we only need to....". How is that workin out for you?

Gettin anywhere?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

It hasn't worked well yet.

Only 16 so times in 220 years.

It is so overwhelming we are discouraged to try to mobilize support, because some think it could lead to a constitutional convention, and they think all the people will vote against their interest to give themselves less rights, somehow. I guess that's their argument. To wait and hope for people to wake up, or the rulers get nicer.

Seems to be a negative view. Don't try for big change, because things could be worse.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

I don't mind trying for big change. I definitely support movetoamend & a constitutional amendment. I recall your proposal sounded interesting, & supportable.

I am hesitant when Art5 is mentioned since I've seen ALEC pushing it last year, and the risk of hijacking the process is great.

But I'm willing to listen, and am not willing to wait for people to wake up, nor do I believe rulers will get nicer.

I'm just not willing to suspend activism on pressuring all pols in the interim.

We can't leave those wacko rulers to do whatever they want can we?

But in terms of the big change. How is it going? What progress are we making? What can I do to help?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

It would not be in exchange for pressure, but amplify pressure, and get them to know we are sick of the crap and have a plan to make life better for us as citizens. And are willing to stand up and fight for it. If nothing else it may lead to awakening of a clear majority. Or not.

  • HR29

  • a "people's house" of random citizens...used in classiical Greece the Boule, to Vet National Initiatives, example here http://www.cusdi.org/index.html

Edit: PS in regards of big change, we are far away. Can't even get background checks with 92 percent support! And some here have virtual veto of effort, or worry for our well emotional being in backing it.

I sent copy of links in a PS, to my national representatives, in a email letter, haven't heard back yet.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

"amplify pressure". Whichever effort is pursued, neither will succeed without amplification.

No one has yet achieved the necessary amplified,massive numbers we need to create change. (big, recreations, or incremental reform)

Too many people are comfortable, and still hypnotized by consumerism, and empty entertainment.

So obviously we should acknowledge that we are in a growth period, and make every effort to affect some control on the PTB until we have grown to succeed in either effort.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

Yes keep up pressure, keep information flowing, do whatever your interests lead in the efforts to wake up public and leaders to restore representative open government, that's not high jacked by corporate and wealthy interests, as it is now, evidenced by this background checks failure today, where 92 percent are in favor of universal checks.

Once you asked wtf have I been doing in my efforts.... I figured out how to search so I can locate my old posts. http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=user%3Agsw

Mostly due to family issues I've been tied to close to home, but I need to get on ground and mingle with the "rabble" rousers in a productive way. I just get discouraged seeing working groups with same 5 people working on many issues.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

I kinda thought your proposal had more people involved and pushing for it.

Occupy Ga's have dwindled, it's true

http://interoccupy.net/blog/preliminary-findings-of-the-occupy-general-assembly-research-project/

But getting the proposal to many different occupies (email, facebook) can generate interest, or at least feedback.

Goodluck. Let me know if that helps, or ifI can help in anyway.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

I don't do do Facebook, never had a cell phone.

I sent link to local Ows, and no explanation. I just never cared Facebook. Or cell.

rarely check email, loaded with junkmail.

I will do old fassioned way, maybe make some page flyers, with little links to Action, with the little tear off pieces at bottom and find a bulletin board.

Will Visit my legislators. Be army of 1.

Some people thought linked to ALEC Koch f*ckers, or they could coop. Rather discouraging.

I'm not unlike a virtual hermit, literally. thanks for encouragement

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

Well lotsa luck. You ARE on line now, and this IS important enough to venture into new avenues of communications,

Or perhaps you can enlist someone more comfortable with social networking to send your proposal around on your behalf.

This IS very important, and there is great value in your proposal.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 12 months ago

Americans do not know what their needs are, or corporations would not be so in control by getting Americans to trade their needs for wants for 50 years.

It is a "we" that has these needs. I am not alone.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

Evidence

50 percent don't vote.

Monsanto

92 percent want background checks, cant get 60 percent in Senate.

Freedom (to be ignorant and helpless) crappy media

minimum wage $7 forever... oh well...could be worse

we're in debt prison and fear due to huge deficits and private debts,

don't know to want universal health care, or demand it

don't know to get in streets to demand justice and better world

freedom from fear of "obama comunism"

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 12 months ago

Not sure we even know what percentage votes. With the vote tampering, how can we be sure?

In fact, the recent California ballot initiative to label GMO's failed, or so we hear. I have a hard time imagining that people defeated labeling. It's much easier to accept that the vote was changed with techno-tampering.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 12 months ago

On another completely different note, even though Bush was willfully ignorant, And guilty of international crime, i am not a truther.

You?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 12 months ago

Hah, "truther" is a "label", a cognitive distortion. I like truth and try to use only it for decision making.

As far as I can tell, "truthers" are not interested in truth. They have a social group and they agree on something. They call that truth. Basically they agree on a bunch of information which has absolutely no use, they are very well misled.

gwb was of course a puppet, so "willful" don't mean much. A full understanding, constructed with widely explanatory facts will create another picture which makes him appear as a willful puppet, when in reality, his perceptions were so distorted and controlled that he was robotic. There were elements that were willfully violating laws that could be tried, but it would all be clouded by the underlying truth of how puppets are created and controlled.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 12 months ago

I would think that if the ruling is that a"corporatin was a legal person" then the IRS needs to tax them the same way they tax individuals.

That would surely get rid of all the loopholes don't ya think?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 12 months ago

Not if they tax them like a rich person, which we do not tax nearly enough!.