"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."
*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.
----
Click to visit the Wolf-PAC Forums
Do you like this post?
Showing 1452 reactions
Paul Keleher commented
2012-11-04 21:05:19 -0500
· Flag
Hi Naveen,
re [no bribery] Section 2: bribery is already illegal as we’ve agreed. Public officials on every level have gone to jail as a result of their having accepted bribes and been proven guilty of it at trial. Yet influence-peddling continues. There are proposals intended to stem the revolving door between gov’t and business that focus on prohibiting holders of public office from taking jobs in their field for a certain period after they leave office, and visa-versa.
re [no bribery] Section 2: bribery is already illegal as we’ve agreed. Public officials on every level have gone to jail as a result of their having accepted bribes and been proven guilty of it at trial. Yet influence-peddling continues. There are proposals intended to stem the revolving door between gov’t and business that focus on prohibiting holders of public office from taking jobs in their field for a certain period after they leave office, and visa-versa.
Naveen Chawla commented
2012-11-01 20:50:12 -0400
· Flag
LoNgLiVeThEsNaKe, the solution is not to limit free (honest) speech per se, but to end propaganda (that is, non-equal-access, or “owned” debate). As long as “the freedom of the press” is not explicitly clarified or superseded to be equal-access by the constitution itself, money domination of politics will be constant, complete and inevitable. Think beyond “campaign contributions” – even if that ended there would be the Super PACs. Even if Super PACs ended, media channels would simply be purchased and propaganda (non-equal-access, or “owned” debate) would be disseminated that way. The end result is STILL the ongoing and inevitable complete domination of politics by money, which the ONLY possible way to curtail is therefore an Equal Voice clause in an amendment to the constitution (which would also secure net neutrality beyond simple repeal), such as:
"
[Equal Voice clause]
The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions – every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
This can be part of a “Money Out of Politics” 28th amendment that seeks also to address the “revolving door” phenomenon (politicians and public agents getting multi-million dollar do-nothing “jobs” at lobbying and other firms after they leave office as a result of official decisions):
"
[Proposed Joint Resolution: Money Out of Politics] 28th Amendment -
[Equal Voice] Section 1.
The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions – every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof.
[No Bribery] Section 2.
No public official, agent or employee of any public authority, agency or department in or of the United States shall be permitted to accept or continue to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, and regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office.
[Authority to Legislate to Enforce] Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
"
[Equal Voice clause]
The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions – every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
This can be part of a “Money Out of Politics” 28th amendment that seeks also to address the “revolving door” phenomenon (politicians and public agents getting multi-million dollar do-nothing “jobs” at lobbying and other firms after they leave office as a result of official decisions):
"
[Proposed Joint Resolution: Money Out of Politics] 28th Amendment -
[Equal Voice] Section 1.
The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions – every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof.
[No Bribery] Section 2.
No public official, agent or employee of any public authority, agency or department in or of the United States shall be permitted to accept or continue to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, and regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office.
[Authority to Legislate to Enforce] Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
LoNgLiVeThEsNaKe commented
2012-10-31 00:11:51 -0400
· Flag
Just as there are limits on free speech when it comes to yelling “fire” in a theater that is not ablaze, so to should there be limits on “free speech” in regards to unlimited, unmonitored campaign contributions which inevitably lead to the deregulation of markets, financial institutions and cap & trade. For this latter form of “free speech” will negatively effect theaters of people, present and future, in a far greater magnitude. It will (in some cases already has) lead to the destruction of our economy, environment and political processes.
While the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court was disguised as an attempt to protect freedom of speech, it failed to limit said freedom from adversely affecting fellow citizens. It allows a form of freedom of speech that is unlimited. Freedoms should always be limited to the effect that they don’t obstruct others’ health and liberty.
Although I am sure similar arguments have already been put forth, if you feel like anything in the previous two paragraphs will be of any use to our common cause please do redistribute this argument.
While the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court was disguised as an attempt to protect freedom of speech, it failed to limit said freedom from adversely affecting fellow citizens. It allows a form of freedom of speech that is unlimited. Freedoms should always be limited to the effect that they don’t obstruct others’ health and liberty.
Although I am sure similar arguments have already been put forth, if you feel like anything in the previous two paragraphs will be of any use to our common cause please do redistribute this argument.
Naveen Chawla commented
2012-10-28 20:28:22 -0400
· Flag
Dear Paul,
My understanding of a “right to have” in law is the duty for the nation to provide for it. You may be thinking of a “freedom” (e.g. the freedom of speech), or maybe even a "right to ". Equal Voice is an over-arching principle based on the premise that to maximize correctness and minimize error, all ideas must be given the equal opportunity to be tested in (exhaustive reasoned) debate.
Since the constitution is Supreme Law, I believe only the principle of the “right to have” itself needs to be enshrined in it. However, if there is a provable technical methodology of achieving it, then that should also be included. If there isn’t currently, then that should be left as a matter for discussion by congress, with the “right to have” law as its guiding principle.
I agree that bribery is already illegal. Yet for some reason there still exists the “revolving door” phenomenon (politicians and agents getting do-nothing multi-million dollar “jobs” at lobbying and other firms when they leave office, as a result of legislative/official decisions). It seems to me the part I included: “regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office” would address this. However, do you think this would fail, and if so, do you have any ideas for how to stop it?
To your last point, I re-iterate that I believe allowing any form of “campaigning” (what I call propaganda) breaches the Equal Voice principle, even if it is publicly funded only. I believe public, equal-access debate is sufficient. The Equal Voice principle is really pro-debate vs propaganda.
My understanding of a “right to have” in law is the duty for the nation to provide for it. You may be thinking of a “freedom” (e.g. the freedom of speech), or maybe even a "right to ". Equal Voice is an over-arching principle based on the premise that to maximize correctness and minimize error, all ideas must be given the equal opportunity to be tested in (exhaustive reasoned) debate.
Since the constitution is Supreme Law, I believe only the principle of the “right to have” itself needs to be enshrined in it. However, if there is a provable technical methodology of achieving it, then that should also be included. If there isn’t currently, then that should be left as a matter for discussion by congress, with the “right to have” law as its guiding principle.
I agree that bribery is already illegal. Yet for some reason there still exists the “revolving door” phenomenon (politicians and agents getting do-nothing multi-million dollar “jobs” at lobbying and other firms when they leave office, as a result of legislative/official decisions). It seems to me the part I included: “regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office” would address this. However, do you think this would fail, and if so, do you have any ideas for how to stop it?
To your last point, I re-iterate that I believe allowing any form of “campaigning” (what I call propaganda) breaches the Equal Voice principle, even if it is publicly funded only. I believe public, equal-access debate is sufficient. The Equal Voice principle is really pro-debate vs propaganda.
Paul Keleher commented
2012-10-28 09:32:59 -0400
· Flag
Hi Naveen…
I raised this question at the end of my last post, “can the Constitution not only protect the rights of people, but their ability to exercise those rights as well?”, which you answered as follows: “The answer to your last question is yes of course it can. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of the United States.” This goes to my concern: that simply being guaranteed the RIGHT to an equal voice does not guarantee one’s ability to exercise that right. The Equal Voice clause, by itself, does not guarantee equal access for all to the channels of communication. The 1st Amendment already prohibits Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech. Clearly that is not enough protection, given the predicament we find ourselves in today.
I hear your argument that the notion of “corporate person-hood” is a red-herring (I will explain what I mean by that expression if it is not clear), but am not yet convinced that the Equal Voice Amendment as it is currently written will address the problem I see that I’ve outlined above. The problem today is not one of rights, but of access, which currently controlled by money… the “Golden Rule” if you will… that is, those who have the gold, rule.
Re bribery: I think bribery is already illegal for anyone, not just members of Congress.
Perhaps this proposed amendment should prohibit private campaign contributions altogether (despite my earlier comments to the contrary where I suggested that people will always want to support candidates they favor with monetary contributions, that could be changed), and prohibit members of Congress and candidates for Congress from accepting any money other than those already provided by the government for campaigning and/or as compensation once elected.
I raised this question at the end of my last post, “can the Constitution not only protect the rights of people, but their ability to exercise those rights as well?”, which you answered as follows: “The answer to your last question is yes of course it can. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of the United States.” This goes to my concern: that simply being guaranteed the RIGHT to an equal voice does not guarantee one’s ability to exercise that right. The Equal Voice clause, by itself, does not guarantee equal access for all to the channels of communication. The 1st Amendment already prohibits Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech. Clearly that is not enough protection, given the predicament we find ourselves in today.
I hear your argument that the notion of “corporate person-hood” is a red-herring (I will explain what I mean by that expression if it is not clear), but am not yet convinced that the Equal Voice Amendment as it is currently written will address the problem I see that I’ve outlined above. The problem today is not one of rights, but of access, which currently controlled by money… the “Golden Rule” if you will… that is, those who have the gold, rule.
Re bribery: I think bribery is already illegal for anyone, not just members of Congress.
Perhaps this proposed amendment should prohibit private campaign contributions altogether (despite my earlier comments to the contrary where I suggested that people will always want to support candidates they favor with monetary contributions, that could be changed), and prohibit members of Congress and candidates for Congress from accepting any money other than those already provided by the government for campaigning and/or as compensation once elected.
Naveen Chawla commented
2012-10-27 19:21:12 -0400
· Flag
Thus I believe the Wolf-Pac / Move to Amend amendment must address “the freedom of the press” (the REAL basis of Citizens United, Buckley vs Valeo, etc., not the imaginary claim that a corporation is a person which was never made in any of those cases), otherwise money will always and inevitably completely dominate politics until such time. It can also explicitly outlaw bribery at all levels of government in the US, to form a single ’Joint Resolution: “Money Out of Politics” ’ amendment:
"
[Proposed Joint Resolution: Money Out of Politics] Amendment XXVIII -
[Equal Voice] Section 1.
Every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof.
[No Bribery] Section 2.
No public official, agent or employee of any public authority, agency or department in or of the United States shall be permitted to accept or continue to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, and regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office.
[Authority to Legislate to Enforce] Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
Every other type of arrangement, upon examination, would make the continued complete domination of politics by money constant and inevitable, which is the exact opposite of what Wolf-Pac, Move to Amend and the majority of the American people want.
"
[Proposed Joint Resolution: Money Out of Politics] Amendment XXVIII -
[Equal Voice] Section 1.
Every individual shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof.
[No Bribery] Section 2.
No public official, agent or employee of any public authority, agency or department in or of the United States shall be permitted to accept or continue to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, and regardless of whether promised or delivered before, during or after his or her time in Office.
[Authority to Legislate to Enforce] Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
Every other type of arrangement, upon examination, would make the continued complete domination of politics by money constant and inevitable, which is the exact opposite of what Wolf-Pac, Move to Amend and the majority of the American people want.
Naveen Chawla commented
2012-10-24 14:16:18 -0400
· Flag
A corporation was considered by the supreme court as an association of (natural) individuals. So even if a corporation has no protection under the constitution (which it never had), the (natural) individuals who control them always will, even if the constitution said that its rights only apply to “natural persons” (which they do). My point is that making the obvious distinction between natural individuals and corporations will have no impact on Supreme Court decisions, since their decisions were never based on conflating the two in the first place: they ALWAYS applied it to the natural individuals (who controlled the corporations) involved anyway. I think this is a mistaken belief: that the Supreme Court ever claimed and sustained “corporate personhood”. Upon examination, that is not the case.
The distinction between a number of associated individuals, and an association of a number of individuals is almost impossible in any given case, in my opinion. The individuals in an association can always sustainably claim that they are exercising their rights individually. If the law is that no rights can be exercised by any individual in the capacity of any legally established association (which is not what Move to Amend Section 1 says), then that could easily impinge upon the ability to speak, assemble, etc. using any of the resources of any otherwise harmless associations that might be legally established in future. Surely we want everyone to be able to speak, regardless of which resources they use, just to have an equal voice? Besides which, such a law, in whatever form, would take away the guaranteed right of such associations, or even their individual members, to a fair trial, impartial jury, to not be subjected to unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure, to not have property seized without just compensation, and a whole host of other things, not just free press rights. Is that really the goal?
I genuinely believe that corporations and LLCs, which are entities that were created only to enjoy special legal immunities, will be eliminated from statute altogether anyway as a result of any exhaustive reasoned representative discussion (such as that which an Equal Voice law would help to conduct).
Again, I don’t see how the Equal Voice Amendment doesn’t cover all political corruption comprehensively anyway, apart from in-pocket bribes and the revolving door phenomenon, to which I might offer the following preceding it:
"
A government guided only by conscience; no elected official within the United States shall be permitted to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, offered by anyone during or after their time in Office as a result of any decision he or she was expected to make or made while in Office.
"
?
The answer to your last question is yes of course it can. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of the United States.
The distinction between a number of associated individuals, and an association of a number of individuals is almost impossible in any given case, in my opinion. The individuals in an association can always sustainably claim that they are exercising their rights individually. If the law is that no rights can be exercised by any individual in the capacity of any legally established association (which is not what Move to Amend Section 1 says), then that could easily impinge upon the ability to speak, assemble, etc. using any of the resources of any otherwise harmless associations that might be legally established in future. Surely we want everyone to be able to speak, regardless of which resources they use, just to have an equal voice? Besides which, such a law, in whatever form, would take away the guaranteed right of such associations, or even their individual members, to a fair trial, impartial jury, to not be subjected to unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure, to not have property seized without just compensation, and a whole host of other things, not just free press rights. Is that really the goal?
I genuinely believe that corporations and LLCs, which are entities that were created only to enjoy special legal immunities, will be eliminated from statute altogether anyway as a result of any exhaustive reasoned representative discussion (such as that which an Equal Voice law would help to conduct).
Again, I don’t see how the Equal Voice Amendment doesn’t cover all political corruption comprehensively anyway, apart from in-pocket bribes and the revolving door phenomenon, to which I might offer the following preceding it:
"
A government guided only by conscience; no elected official within the United States shall be permitted to accept any bribe, in whatever form or however used, offered by anyone during or after their time in Office as a result of any decision he or she was expected to make or made while in Office.
"
?
The answer to your last question is yes of course it can. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of the United States.
Paul Keleher commented
2012-10-24 05:29:20 -0400
· Flag
Naveen,
I don’t have a problem with corporations and organizations of people per se. It is the excessive power and wealth that for-profit corporations have gained that is disturbing to me.
Although I agree with you that these legal entities are obviously not people themselves and have never been acknowledged in the Constitution, the fact they have never been acknowledged in the Constitution has not stopped them from exploiting us, the American people, whose rights the Constitution is supposed to protect. Ignorance of corporations by the Constitution has been insufficient protection. This fact is why the Constitution needs to distinguish between natural persons, whose rights are protected, and organizations of natural persons, which have no rights at all.
You, yourself give the strongest reason why the Constitution must make the distinction between natural persons and organizations of people: “While artificial legal entities are obviously not people, the people that control them are â so a supreme court could easily (and already did, and so will in future) rule on that basis…”, so a future Supreme Court cannot repeat what this Supreme Court has done.
Personally, I believe there is a need for a constitutional amendment not only to declare that legal entities and organizations of people are not people, but further to articulate society’s expectations of all such legally organized bodies of people, such as corporations and LLCs. I think it requires too much deduction for all to clearly see the redundancy you refer to in your previous post.
You point out that the Constitution does not define the term, “freedom of the press”, and I believe it must do this as well. The Equal Voice amendment provides an excellent one: “Everyone shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Our discussion has raised the question: can the Constitution not only protect the rights of people, but their ability to exercise those rights as well?
I don’t have a problem with corporations and organizations of people per se. It is the excessive power and wealth that for-profit corporations have gained that is disturbing to me.
Although I agree with you that these legal entities are obviously not people themselves and have never been acknowledged in the Constitution, the fact they have never been acknowledged in the Constitution has not stopped them from exploiting us, the American people, whose rights the Constitution is supposed to protect. Ignorance of corporations by the Constitution has been insufficient protection. This fact is why the Constitution needs to distinguish between natural persons, whose rights are protected, and organizations of natural persons, which have no rights at all.
You, yourself give the strongest reason why the Constitution must make the distinction between natural persons and organizations of people: “While artificial legal entities are obviously not people, the people that control them are â so a supreme court could easily (and already did, and so will in future) rule on that basis…”, so a future Supreme Court cannot repeat what this Supreme Court has done.
Personally, I believe there is a need for a constitutional amendment not only to declare that legal entities and organizations of people are not people, but further to articulate society’s expectations of all such legally organized bodies of people, such as corporations and LLCs. I think it requires too much deduction for all to clearly see the redundancy you refer to in your previous post.
You point out that the Constitution does not define the term, “freedom of the press”, and I believe it must do this as well. The Equal Voice amendment provides an excellent one: “Everyone shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of âthe freedom of the pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Our discussion has raised the question: can the Constitution not only protect the rights of people, but their ability to exercise those rights as well?
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:56:13 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. #WolfPAC #getmoneyout @del_lspruill_sr @notlarrysabato
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:55:17 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics #WolfPAC #CitizensUnited #getmoneyout @heart2continue
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:53:57 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. #WolfPAC #getmoneyout @chappetersen @delegatetrust
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:52:44 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. #WolfPAC #CitizensUnited #getmoneyout @levarstoney
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:39:58 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. @jennettemccurdy @danwarp
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:34:25 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. @barbarafavola
@Nic3GreenNachos
tweeted
link to this page.
2012-10-23 07:33:18 -0400
Join http://t.co/xx4hvn4X to start an amendment of corporate finance in politics. @senlouiselucas @jeionward @delegatekeam @markkeam
Naveen Chawla commented
2012-10-22 07:44:27 -0400
· Flag
Is there any need for the corporate part? Limited liability companies and corporations are themselves removable phenomena, that aren’t currently acknowledged in the constitution anyway. Acknowledging them in the constitution might even make them last longer than they otherwise would.
While artificial legal entities are obviously not people, the people that control them are – so a supreme court could easily (and already did, and so will in future) rule on that basis, making that clause redundant anyway.
So the problem only lies in the constitution’s “free press” being currently construed as “owned press”, instead of equal-access.
As such, anyone using a corporation to influence politics would be breaching the Equal Voice amendment anyway, so it’s fully covered by it.
TYT is TheYoungTurks, headed by Cenk Uygur, the founder of Wolf-Pac. I don’t think Citizens United has been properly studied. It never argued that a corporation is a person, only that it is an association of (natural) people, and that association must have First Amendment rights. So the “natural person” part, in my opinion, has nothing to do with this issue. Citizens United is therefore, in my opinion, sustainable even with the “natural persons” part included. Regarding another of the objections, the constitution says nothing about corruption or the “appearance of corruption”, only “freedom of speech, or of the press”… (If corruption or the appearance of corruption were unconstitutional, we wouldn’t be here talking about the need for a constitutional amendment!)
The Equal Voice amendment addresses the entire problem (“free press” being an owned press rather than equal-access) and so is sufficient on its own in my opinion.
I had previously thought the constitution said “free press”, but it actually says “the freedom of speech, or of the press”, so what do you think about this revision:
"
Everyone shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of “the freedom of the press” within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
?
(The 1st sentence is the only important one. The 2nd isn’t technically needed because amendments automatically supercede whatever came before it.)
While artificial legal entities are obviously not people, the people that control them are – so a supreme court could easily (and already did, and so will in future) rule on that basis, making that clause redundant anyway.
So the problem only lies in the constitution’s “free press” being currently construed as “owned press”, instead of equal-access.
As such, anyone using a corporation to influence politics would be breaching the Equal Voice amendment anyway, so it’s fully covered by it.
TYT is TheYoungTurks, headed by Cenk Uygur, the founder of Wolf-Pac. I don’t think Citizens United has been properly studied. It never argued that a corporation is a person, only that it is an association of (natural) people, and that association must have First Amendment rights. So the “natural person” part, in my opinion, has nothing to do with this issue. Citizens United is therefore, in my opinion, sustainable even with the “natural persons” part included. Regarding another of the objections, the constitution says nothing about corruption or the “appearance of corruption”, only “freedom of speech, or of the press”… (If corruption or the appearance of corruption were unconstitutional, we wouldn’t be here talking about the need for a constitutional amendment!)
The Equal Voice amendment addresses the entire problem (“free press” being an owned press rather than equal-access) and so is sufficient on its own in my opinion.
I had previously thought the constitution said “free press”, but it actually says “the freedom of speech, or of the press”, so what do you think about this revision:
"
Everyone shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of “the freedom of the press” within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"
?
(The 1st sentence is the only important one. The 2nd isn’t technically needed because amendments automatically supercede whatever came before it.)
Paul Keleher commented
2012-10-21 21:44:43 -0400
· Flag
Correction:
âThe rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and shall be subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Every natural person shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the Unites States. This shall henceforth be construed as the definition of âfree pressâ within this Constitution and all laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.â
âThe rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and shall be subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Every natural person shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the Unites States. This shall henceforth be construed as the definition of âfree pressâ within this Constitution and all laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.â
Paul Keleher commented
2012-10-21 21:39:58 -0400
· Flag
The first thing that comes to mind is to approach Move-to-Amend or Wolf-Pac to ask if their proposed text is a draft that is still open to revision. If so, I would suggest the following proposal, keeping their opening lines and then adding the Equal Voice text as follows:
âThe rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Every natural person shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the Unites States. This shall henceforth be construed as the definition of âfree pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.â
By the way, what is, “TYT”?
âThe rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Every natural person shall have the equal right to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the Unites States. This shall henceforth be construed as the definition of âfree pressâ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.â
By the way, what is, “TYT”?
