28th Amendment

The Wolf-PAC Resolution does not contain specific amendment language because we truly want to hear all sides and solutions at the amendments convention.  We think the amendment should contain these core values: 

"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 legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.



Do you like this post?

Showing 1723 reactions

commented 2013-01-26 16:50:18 -0500 · Flag
Sorry for not responding sooner.

As I said earlier, "The intent is to differentiate between people and legal entities without listing examples of legal entities so as to avoid being limited to only those types of entities listed. "
commented 2013-01-25 02:00:59 -0500 · Flag
Rich, I wasn’t talking about charters or even the right to be a corporation at all, I was talking about the authority to deny or remove any and all rights & protections to a natural individual based on the arbitrary judgement that he/she is acting as a member of a “corporation” instead of by his/her own individual accord. But in the best case everyone is seen as acting by his/her individual accord, making the clause redundant anyway. So there’s no point including a clause which can only ever switch between redundant and unjustifiable.

So you should address, in a clear way, the potential abuses and/or oversights, by anyone, that you wish to address, in your 28th amendment proposal itself. Of course you could specify legally recognized associations in that clause, but why would you want to allow people who aren’t acting in the capacity of any legally recognized association to commit the exact same abuses and/or oversights? Do you see what I’m getting at now?
commented 2013-01-24 11:19:34 -0500 · Flag
Corps can still get charters authorized by State legislatures for limited purposes just like it was before the 1886 Pacific Railway decision. You don’t have a clue of what is true. You ignore the entire legal history of the western world and make your own imaginary assumptions. Just because you or I write something does not make it true.

The declaration made natural persons sovereign. The 1% steal that sovereignty legally by perverting the Constitution.
commented 2013-01-24 10:02:22 -0500 · Flag
Rich, this is purely about the authority to deny any and all rights to a natural individual based on whether that individual is deemed to be acting by his/her own individual accord OR acting in his/her capacity as a member of a legally recognized association (e.g. corporation). Both are true in all such cases, so the decision for the authorities to claim one over the other can only be arbitrary. Why would you want to allow the authority to take away ALL rights from a member of a corporation? You do realize that includes even the most basic human rights & protections, don’t you? On the other hand, if that individual is deemed to be acting by his/her own individual accord, which is also true in all cases, then he/she will be given ALL constitutional protections anyway, making such a constitutional clause utterly redundant anyway. So why bother including a clause which can only ever arbitrarily switch between redundant and unjustifiable at any given moment?

Law should address any potential abuses and/or oversights themselves, not state that someone might be arbitrarily denied any and all rights & protections under the entire law, or in the best case just be ignored as a redundant truism.

The solution is to address the potential abuses and/or oversights you wish to address, in your 28th amendment proposal itself. For example, strengthening anti-bribery law (18 USC Section 201) such that anyone reporting a suspected case will be followed by a full & verifiably thorough investigation, and/or prohibition of behaviours which are strong signs of bribery but which aren’t deemed sufficient evidence to prosecute at the moment. etc.
commented 2013-01-24 03:55:42 -0500 · Flag
The last 120 years after the 1886 Pacific Railway case has been dominated and controlled by Corporations, non-natural beings, exercising their rights in our courts. That is the sole job of corporate attorneys. Well, a main job of corporate attorneys is to destroy evidence that could be used in a court of law against their employers.

That is why we have the best Congress money can buy. You do not have a clue, not one clue, of how the law is used to control our lives. Ignorance is the first way to lose your Constitutional rights. How stupid can anyone be? Not much more than that comment. “Paul, no non-natural-being has ever exercised a right.” Total pure crap. Total blind ignorance.
commented 2013-01-24 02:29:16 -0500 · Flag
Paul, no non-natural-being has ever exercised a right. That’s because no non-natural-being is conscious in order to be able to do so. You can’t justifiably allow the authority to remove any and all rights and protections from an individual because they happen to be a member of a legally-recognized association, even a “corporation”. The best-case scenario for such a constitutional clause is that it is dismissed as an obvious truism and is never put into any real-life action. The worst-case scenario is for it to ever be applied in real life, where the members of one or more legally-recognized associations are arbitrarily deemed to have been acting as one instead of each by their own individual accord, and so have rights & protections arbitrarily taken away from them, and in the worst case every right & protection. Including such a clause would set up a wasteful “framers’ intent” controversy between these 2 approaches (the 1st one being correct, thereby making the clause itself redundant in any and all cases, and the 2nd one being wrong) and so I do not believe it should be included in the 28th amendment at all.

The equal-chance-voice clause is intended to remove the ability to legally purchase artificial campaign propaganda advantage. What other rights and protections are you trying to deny to individual members of legally-recognized associations via clause 1? Remember you can’t punish or deny (or even grant) any rights and/or protections to any such artificial entity, only to individuals. This has always been the case and any opposing assessment, in my view, is simply based on a misunderstanding.
commented 2013-01-22 19:45:06 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, you make good points.

The intent is to differentiate between people and legal entities without listing examples of legal entities so as to avoid being limited to only those types of entities listed. I obviously do not intend to exclude constitutional protection from certain groups of individuals like married couples and the others you list. I’m sure there are more as well.

This’ll take some work.
commented 2013-01-22 19:45:06 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, you make good points.

The intent is to differentiate between people and legal entities without listing examples of legal entities so as to avoid being limited to only those types of entities listed. I obviously do not intend to exclude constitutional protection from certain groups of individuals like married couples and the others you list. I’m sure there are more as well.

This’ll take some work.
commented 2013-01-22 03:48:23 -0500 · Flag
Rich, instead of going round in circles, provide your own preferred media parameters in your constitutional amendment proposal, because as the history of the FCC shows, they cannot be trusted to carry them out on their own and given that your amendment makes the existing media owners even more politically influential, it could make the FCC carrying them out on their own even more unlikely.
commented 2013-01-22 00:50:28 -0500 · Flag
We just have a difference of opinion. We don’t agree with all the many, many comments we have made. We have covered it all. I gave you some references to look at. I am done with the conversation. It does not go anywhere. It seems to me to be pointless to say another word.

A bunch of circular point counter point. Pointless.
commented 2013-01-22 00:09:53 -0500 · Flag
Paul, I prefer “natural individuals” over “natural citizens”. Citizenship is a revocable phenomenon.

Even so, as difficult as it may be for some to admit, the supreme court were in fact only protecting the natural individuals controlling the corporation, nothing more. Everyone who disagrees should answer this simple question: who ELSE were they protecting? Any real-world-case enactment of your clause sets a precedent for charities, clubs, even families, married couples etc., you name it, to be denied any and all rights as long as they have arbitrarily been considered (and it is arbitrary), in any given case, to be acting as one instead of each by his/her individual accord.
commented 2013-01-21 18:08:42 -0500 · Flag
Sorry for the typo: “including any organization of any size consisting whether consisting of natural citizens or other persons…” should read, “including any organization of any size, whether consisting of natural citizens or other persons…”
commented 2013-01-21 18:06:08 -0500 · Flag
I suggest the following revised 28th amendment text:

Section 1 [Legal entities have no rights]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural citizens only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities [including any organization of any size consisting whether consisting of natural citizens or other persons and established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution. The privileges of artificial entities shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Equal Voice of natural citizens]
The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions, every natural citizen shall have, by right, the equal opportunity 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.

Section 3 [enforcement]
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
commented 2013-01-21 16:12:03 -0500 · Flag
Rich, I beg your pardon! Totally incorrect? Don’t just glibly tell me to go study some more. Explain yourself, for a change.
commented 2013-01-21 15:27:51 -0500 · Flag
paul, totally incorrect. Study some more.
commented 2013-01-21 09:59:05 -0500 · Flag

I have learned this from your kindly supplied info:

1. Since 1949, the Supreme Court mercifully did not interpret the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” in such a way as to impinge on the fairness doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949.

2. However, in 1987 the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine all by itself, saying they did it because they believe fairness doctrine DOES violate the First Amendment. They also relaxed media ownership regulations all on their own. Of course the leadership of the FCC changes by political appointment.

3. Therefore the FCC cannot itself be trusted to institute any representation in media.

4. Given that your amendment heightens the political power of the existing media owners in the best case scenario, it could make it even more difficult than it already is to make the media more representative.

5. Therefore you should articulate your preferred media parameters in your constitutional amendment proposal itself.

6. So must Wolf-PAC, Move-To-Amend & anybody proposing a 28th amendment.

7. I maintain that the equal-chance-voice 28th amendment to the constitution is the correct one. It both supplies the correct media parameters and gets special interest money out of political campaigning.
commented 2013-01-21 09:28:11 -0500 · Flag
I reiterate my previous position and ask anyone who disagrees to state their difference and support their statement: “The purpose of many constitutional amendments is to provide a moral imperative on a particular issue that legislators of all stripes must abide by. An effective constitutional amendment whose purpose is to get money out of politics therefore CANNOT LEAVE IT UP TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ANY KIND TO THEIR OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.”
commented 2013-01-21 09:16:47 -0500 · Flag
Rich, in response to your comment to me of 8 hours ago in which you said, “Congress has had little or no authority to regulate money in campaigns for the past 120 years or more. Duh.”, apparently to you the Citizen’s United decision by the SC was no big deal since all it did was to undue the REGULATIONS that had prohibited corporations from donating directly to political campaigns. So, “Duh” back to you!

Never having studied case law and legal background, I admit to a general ignorance of details in those fields, but one need look no further than the Citizen’s United decision to understand that congress has indeed regulated campaign contributions.
commented 2013-01-21 07:28:14 -0500 · Flag
The FCC paper is great background for understanding the problems controlling the airwaves for public purposes. I intend to read much more in research so I comprehend the problem more fully.
commented 2013-01-21 07:20:03 -0500 · Flag
Here is a PDF on FCC Regulatory History. http://www.oswego.edu/~messere/RadioReg.pdf . We can read it together. I know I will learn more on the decades long history. Enjoy.
commented 2013-01-21 05:44:00 -0500 · Flag
Rich, FCC breaking up media ownership too would just be a feeding frenzy for the highest bidders, yes? So wouldn’t equal-chance-voice be the ideal FCC rule instead? But then what’s to stop ANY FCC rule (even equal-chance-voice) being overturned in future by a supreme court citing “the freedom of the press”? Doesn’t that make the equal-chance-voice constitutional amendment the necessary measure? If you think not, why?
commented 2013-01-21 05:12:39 -0500 · Flag
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly: I want to read the new one. First pub in 1992. See for associated books. So much more than I know. Research it. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_New_Media_Monopoly.html?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC . Enjoy the journey. Rich S.
commented 2013-01-21 04:37:51 -0500 · Flag
Rich, I couldn’t find the FCC media ownership rules of the 1960s. Was there sufficient representation of opinion back then? Would it forcibly break up existing media ownership? Isn’t that just a way for others who can afford it to purchase influence over politics? So even though there are more owners, wouldn’t it still be an unrepresentative cross-section of the population?

Even if you made the FCC rule for equal-chance voice (for representative cross-section), would it be immune from any constitutional challenge via “the freedom of the press”?
commented 2013-01-21 02:07:11 -0500 · Flag
The law resolves moral disagreements by making rules that everyone has to follow. Religion has caused more immoral actions in history than anything else. Today and all the way through history. Religious wars. Ridiculous. Too many religions and irrational assumptions. Bad law.
commented 2013-01-21 01:58:12 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, repeal FCC ownership regs to go back to restricted ownership of 50 years ago. Look it up.
commented 2013-01-21 01:56:28 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, we strongly disagree again. Morality is a bad basis for human behavior. The road to hell is paved with good moral intentions. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. You are welcome to yours. I’ll bet you cannot allow me the same courtesy.
commented 2013-01-21 01:33:11 -0500 · Flag
Rich, you’re right, not religious.

What would be the ideal FCC rule in your opinion, and would it be immune from any constitutionally challenge in light of “the freedom of the press”?
commented 2013-01-21 01:30:12 -0500 · Flag
Not only all law, but in fact all actions, discussed or not, are based on morality.

Repealing prohibition was based based on morality just as much as passing it was, because the outcome of prohibition was eventually deemed more immoral than the outcome of repealing it.

Your proposed amendment is based on morality, because it is about what you deem to be right, and wrong.

It is immoral that some have their arguments artificially heard by more people because it makes it impossible to gauge how provable/disprovable any given argument is.
commented 2013-01-21 01:26:34 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, good law is not based on religious mythology, but on good ethics. All law is based legal ethics. English case law.
commented 2013-01-21 01:23:55 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, reforming the FCC is a separate issue. Simply need to limit ownership as in the past. Fire D and R incumbents. Appoint a 99% director of the FCC.
← Previous  1  2    10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18    57  58  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:

Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack


wants to volunteer
(@almasaydynov) is following @MichaelMonetta on Twitter
started a monthly donation

View All