Occupy The Courts

[Doug Loudenback]

As part of a national "Occupy the Courts" day, this Friday, between noon an 1 pm, Occupy the Courts will have a rally north of the federal courthouse as part of a movement to overturn the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment. See http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2012/01...ted-or-we.html



Here's their poster:

[Snowman]

Is a case even up for decision? Without that there is not anything the courts can do unilaterally to change a prior ruling.

[Doug Loudenback]

The main advocacy group, MoveToAmend.org, is leading a movement for a constitutional amendment, like I said in my 1st post. From http://movetoamend.org/amendment, the proposed amendment is shown below.

Move to Amend 28th Amendment

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

The 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.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

[Midtowner]

I'm behind that amendment 100%. Would even be interested in getting involved in organization efforts. Rallies in front of courthouses, not so much. Being part of something getting our legislature (as part of the 38 state legislatures needed to ratify such an animal) to approve such an Amendment, I could see being a part of something like that.

[Doug Loudenback]

Midtowner, try http://www.facebook.com/okcmovetoamend

[MikeOKC]

Left, right, center, upside-down ---- everyone should support this.

[Just the facts]

I'll have to think on the wording a bit but I am 100% in favor of the theory.

[Doug Loudenback]

I presume that many here have already seen Steven Colbert's Comedy Central video ... er, that of the Super PAC which is supporting him ("Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow"), which is a total hoot ... but for those who've not seen it, here it is:

[Midtowner]

Really, it shouldn't be impossible to get 38 state legislatures to sign on to this sort of amendment.

[Just the facts]

Really, it shouldn't be impossible to get 38 state legislatures to sign on to this sort of amendment.

The states are the easy part. Getting both house of Congress to pass it by 2/3 in each will be hard. They would be turning down a lot of money. I don't see them doing it.

[RadicalModerate]

How about every member of Congress who votes against it gets replaced.
Not necessarily in the old, tried and true Soviet manner . . . but replaced.
And then becomes a "non-person" . . .

Love the '60s Style fist with the gavel.
Inspired.

[SoonerDave]

The wording on that amendment is horrendous. Beyond horrendous.

If your intent is to get speech protection removed from corporations, then the amendment you want is one that specifically removes corporations from the umbrella of language used to include them in the class of entities given protected speech rights.

I, personally, am not ready to criminalize or suppress the expression of individuals working together in a corporate manner to express their political views, no matter how egregious I may find the abuse of that discretion among certain examples in our society. I'm trying to understand the threshold at which the people that comprise a corporation lose their free speech rights merely for the fact they've chosen to organize as a "corporation," and enjoy the efficiencies of acting in concert rather than individually. If I choose to send $20 to a corporately-organized PAC of my choice because I recognize they represent my views corporately more effectively than I do individually, why should I be prevented from doing so?

Ugly thing this "free speech."

[RadicalModerate]

Perhaps we need to reconsider our ethnocentric, monoculturalist, objection to Sharia Law.
I am confident it speaks quite clearly to issues like this.
(With no ifs, ands or buts)

[Midtowner]

The wording on that amendment is horrendous. Beyond horrendous.

If your intent is to get speech protection removed from corporations, then the amendment you want is one that specifically removes corporations from the umbrella of language used to include them in the class of entities given protected speech rights.

I, personally, am not ready to criminalize or suppress the expression of individuals working together in a corporate manner to express their political views, no matter how egregious I may find the abuse of that discretion among certain examples in our society. I'm trying to understand the threshold at which the people that comprise a corporation lose their free speech rights merely for the fact they've chosen to organize as a "corporation," and enjoy the efficiencies of acting in concert rather than individually. If I choose to send $20 to a corporately-organized PAC of my choice because I recognize they represent my views corporately more effectively than I do individually, why should I be prevented from doing so?

Ugly thing this "free speech."

I don't think anyone is talking about criminalizing it, just regulating it so it can do less harm. Citizens United has given rise to a corporate cronyism which we won't be able to cast off without some Constitutional change.

[Midtowner]

The states are the easy part. Getting both house of Congress to pass it by 2/3 in each will be hard. They would be turning down a lot of money. I don't see them doing it.

That's not the only way to amend the Constitution.

If 2/3 of the states' legislatures declare a constitutional convention, they can do so. The convention can propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve.

[RadicalModerate]

Hey. Stop with all that vaguely 10th Amendment related, Constitutional graveyard digging, already.
Some people might find it offensive. It flies in the face of The New Whirled Order.

If I were a gamblin' man . . . (which I'm not)
I'd be willing to bet that the odds are on the side of The Alternative Amendment process.

By-Pass The Congressional Corruption completely.
Checks and Balances. No Revolutionary Bloodshed.
Minimal application of tear gas.

(Except for the tears of joy I shed a few minutes ago listening to The Big O gassing about his feeble attempt to re-explain and re-define the soon to be remodeled "quote" on one section of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's Memorial. It was the thing about being a "drum major" . . . Even more misquoted than the original intent of the remark that became an inscription.)

[Doug Loudenback]

These are the remarks of President Obama a week following the Citizens United decision, extracted from his State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010.

[Just the facts]

That's not the only way to amend the Constitution.

If 2/3 of the states' legislatures declare a constitutional convention, they can do so. The convention can propose one or more amendments. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve.

True, but since that route had never been done I didn't think you were proposing that option. I would love to see a constitutional convention.

[edcrunk]

Corporations are people... Duh.

[Just the facts]

Corporations are people... Duh.

...but unborn babies aren't. Go figure.

not trying to start an abortion debate - just making a point of reference.

[Doug Loudenback]

On December 8, 2011, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) took the Senate floor to introduce a constitutional amendment sponsored by him and by Alaska Senator Mark Begich (D) (an identical resolution was introduced in the House by Florida Rep. Ted Deutch (D) on November 18, 2011)):



Here is the text of Senator Sanders' proposed amendment:

Senate Joint Resolution
112th Congress, 1st Session

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on __________

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘‘ARTICLE __

‘‘SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

‘‘SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

‘‘SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’.

Rep. Ted Deutch's proposed amendment was actually introduced in the House earlier, on November 18, 2011, and except for the House/Senate prefatory portions, the actual content of the House and Senate versions is identical.

[Just the facts]

Why limit this to for-profit corporations? Non-profits are creations of the state as well and they are not people either. I would have to vote this down. Makes me wonder what their true objective is when they start descriminating between types of companies in the Constitution. Ban them all. Only Humans are people.

[SoonerDave]

Why limit this to for-profit corporations? Non-profits are creations of the state as well and they are not people either. I would have to vote this down. Makes me wonder what their true objective is when they start descriminating between types of companies in the Constitution. Ban them all. Only Humans are people.

They have to limit it to for-profit corps, or else they have to construct a "means" test to decide which corporations are "allowed" to speak and which aren't. They don't want to go down that slippery slope, because they *know* that's where it will end up.

Enact this, and I can easily envision the day when a private business owner, who just happened to incorporate his business, puts up a pro-whomever sign in his place of business, and the Corporate Contribution Police deems it to have been an "in-kind contribution," and have him fined and/or thrown in prison.

This is a horrendous amendment, and I will actively work to oppose it. Corporations, no matter how you slice it, are comprised of people, and people have rights, whether its one, or ten thousand.

[kevinpate]

... Only Humans are people.

And sometimes even that seems questionable.

[Doug Loudenback]

This is a horrendous amendment, and I will actively work to oppose it. Corporations, no matter how you slice it, are comprised of people, and people have rights, whether its one, or ten thousand.

I've got you done for two (2) votes "Nay," SoonerDave. As to why unions and not-for-profits were not included in the Sanders proposal, I'm interested in hearing the rationale for those choices, also.