Bullshit Amendment to constitution proposed by trickery [Corporation related]

[charrington]

“RESOLVED, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

84% of voters in Madison, Wisconsin have approved the above measure that would strip corporations of any claim to the protection of rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Voters elsewhere in Wisconsin have also approved the measure in their particular counties. The proposal comes in the wake of Wisconsin Republicans successful efforts to strip from state unions the right to collectively bargain. The battle over that bill galvanized many in America, and has spurred progressives and others on the left to reassert workers’ rights.

The amendment, proposed by Move to Amend, is meant to strike at the heart of Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that ruled that corporations were entitled to the same constitutional protection as citizens. That decision also paved the way for corporations to donate any amount they wish to political campaigns.

Many Americans, including Republicans, are decidedly against giving corporations the same rights as individuals, and are also very much against allowing corporations to fund campaigns. According to a Survey USA poll, 70% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats are for rejecting the underlying tenets of Citizens United.

Whether or not progressives, and any conservative allies they pick up a long the...
MORE
http://www.pculpa.com/component/content/article/54-breaking/283-measure-to-strip-corporations-of-constitutional-rights-gains-steam-in-wisconsin.html

[WakeUpAmerica]

if this happened at a Federal level that would be a HUGE step forward

[MonkeyPuppet]

Holy shit.  Suddenly I don't feel so alone!  Awesomesauce!!

[Monkeypox]

If only.

[LoreOnTerror]

Concerned about corporate personhood but no mention of person corporatehood.

[larsonstdoc]

   Undue corporate influence--one of the big problems in America

   Not abiding to the Constitution by US Congress, the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch--THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN AMERICA.

   It is amazing how Ron Paul always gets it right.

[agentbluescreen]

Concerned about corporate personhood but no mention of person corporatehood.

They are basically one and the same. Soulless bestial incorporation are merely a private liability and culpability shield for individuals, but s we have seen sole proprietorships like Madoff's really can't hide the perpetrator from personal liability (as multi-shareholder cult-covens so effectively often do). On a personal incorporation basis they are primarily an income tax and lawsuit dodge.

What is troubling however is the implication this return to legal sanity has for (against) fair trade competition. Exactly how are good company citizens (here) to compete against criminal (imperialist) corporate foes abroad without protectionism? Fair well-regulated free marketry cannot thrive and coexist with unfair mercantile monopolism in an unfairly opened battlefield. (open market) unless consumers are able and willing to afford it.

Conducting enterprise responsibly has added costs that not doing so do not.

[Jackson Holly]

Concerned about corporate personhood but no mention of person corporatehood.

+1 ... exactly. Under the law we the people
are corporations, as I understand it. This is the
reason that 'corporations = personhood' so far
as our twisted court system and our loving
government are concerned.

 

[larsonstdoc]

  Whatever the Wisconsin legislature does, you can be sure that the other side has scum lawyers to find loopholes to get around any legislation that is passed BECAUSE MOST COURTS ARE CROOKED TO THE MAX INCLUDING THE non abiding to the Constitution US Supreme Court.  These courts will side with corporations because we live in a fascist country run by corporations.

[charrington]

Real "change" for the betterment of mankind isn't possible in this environment, but it makes good news doesn't it.

[Kilika]

Hmm, nobody caught it. Very telling. It's right there in the very first sentence...

“RESOLVED, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:

[Michal Ptacnik]

If representative democracy could really change something, they'd have abolished it a long time ago. That is how much I believe in the success of this.

[Kilika]

If representative democracy could really change something, they'd have abolished it a long time ago. That is how much I believe in the success of this.

You get half a cookie! You caught the democracy part, but the US has nothing to do with democracy, period. America is a constitutional republic.

[MonkeyPuppet]

You get half a cookie! You caught the democracy part, but the US has nothing to do with democracy, period. America is a constitutional republic.

Now you're just nitpicking .  Granted, I'm all for not using certain words as much as possible for the way they have been used and abused.  However, the voice of the People and its influence upon those running for public office is the right being utilized by corporations and insofar as such is the target of this amendment.  That voice is a remnant of the democratic process which is part of our representative Constitutional Republic... oh noes!! I said democratic!!

Seriously, we don't have to go out of our way avoid words simply because they have been misused in the past.  They still have a meaning and purpose, and when used properly in context are void of any nefarious intent.  

However, if someone puts a capital "D" in front of that shit, jump all over 'em like a Congressman on a lobby gift.

[chris jones]

   Undue corporate influence--one of the big problems in America

   Not abiding to the Constitution by US Congress, the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch--THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN AMERICA.

   It is amazing how Ron Paul always gets it right.

Just had to bump that!!

[Dig]

You cannot be striped of right you never had.

They never had these rights, Judge Sotomayor has already ruled on this and Ginsberg has backed her up.

This is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt.

This is an attempt to open up the constitution and the Bilderberg Nazis are orgasmic at the idea the American people can be tricked so easily.

[Dig]

Anything (and I mean anything) that says "by amending the constitution" is total bullshit!

The constitution is not being obeyed. It is not being defended. That is the issue more than anything else. They need to destroy the constitution (by consent) to completely run wild without a care in the world.

[MonkeyPuppet]

You cannot be striped of right you never had.

They never had these rights, Judge Sotomayor has already ruled on this and Ginsberg has backed her up.

This is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt.

This is an attempt to open up the constitution and the Bilderberg Nazis are orgasmic at the idea the American people can be tricked so easily.

14th Amendment, Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Corporations are "persons" according to numerous statutes.  I'd suspect the proposed amendment is supposed to clarify that this is not to be used for the benefit of corporations, which historically is exactly what it has been used for.

Sorry, but corporations enjoy privileges, and those privileges should in no way mimic the rights of human beings.

I'd prefer the 14th be abolished, but I don't think the American public would even understand the argument.

[Dig]

14th Amendment, Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Corporations are "persons" according to numerous statutes.  I'd suspect the proposed amendment is supposed to clarify that this is not to be used for the benefit of corporations, which historically is exactly what it has been used for.

Sorry, but corporations enjoy privileges, and those privileges should in no way mimic the rights of human beings.

I'd prefer the 14th be abolished, but I don't think the American public would even understand the argument.

Sorry but the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with giving corporations inalienable rights. Go to the Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is an over 100 year old bullshit argument, it has been exposed, both Sotomayor and Ginsberg reiterated it. It is now a matter of public record. Corporations are not persons with inalienable rights, they never can be and they never will be no matter how much bankster propaganda is put forward. The 14th Amendment never usurped the Creator into granting manmade corporations inalienable rights. This is the entire issue we are fighting. All men are created equal...certain men cannot create another person which has rights that the Creator gave to men. It is a logically failed proposition and is directly against the entire foundation of this country, the idea of liberty, the idea of government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

[WakeUpAmerica]

Sorry but the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with giving corporations inalienable rights. Go to the Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is an over 100 year old bullshit argument, it has been exposed, both Sotomayor and Ginsberg reiterated it. It is now a matter of public record. Corporations are not persons with inalienable rights, they never can be and they never will be no matter how much bankster propaganda is put forward. The 14th Amendment never usurped the Creator into granting manmade corporations inalienable rights. This is the entire issue we are fighting. All men are created equal...certain men cannot create another person which has rights that the Creator gave to men. It is a logically failed proposition and is directly against the entire foundation of this country, the idea of liberty, the idea of government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

You're quite right but unfortunately the courts don't care about the constitution or the declaration of independence very much..

[Dig]

You're quite right but unfortunately the courts don't care about the constitution or the declaration of independence very much..

So don't you agree that opening up the constitution to an amendment will only invite bankster manipulators since they are not even abiding by the constitution to begin with?

Instead of supporting changes to the constitution, we need to be exposing how the constitution is not being followed by the courts. We also need to support the 10th amendment resolutions which expose much of the fraud in the 14th amendment. Here is what JT and others in Colorado got passed in 1994, more work is needed:

It will require 38 states working independently, reaffirming the 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights, is and will continue to be the UN-DEFILABLE LAW of the Land... 

Under the Sovereignty Resolution, the federal government must then show, upon state by state request, absolute constitutionality all law passed since the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including subsequent Amendments to each of the state's satisfaction...

Read the short, sweet, and to the point, straight forward language of the very first Sovereignty resolution:

STATE OF COLORADO
BY REPRESENTATIVES Duke, May, (et al.)
ALSO SENATORS Roberts, Ament, (et al.)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 94-1035

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of powers defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 1994, the States are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the Colorado General Assembly without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from prior administrations and many now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fifty-ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, a sovereign Republic, the Senate concurring herein:

   1. That the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.
   2. That this Resolution shall serve as Notice and Demand that the federal government, as our agent, is hereby instructed, effective immediately, to cease and desist, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its Constitutionally authorized powers.

Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and each legislative house of each State of the United States of America, and Colorado's Congressional Delegation.

signed) Charles E.Berry, Speaker of the House of Representatives
signed) Tom Norton, President of the Senate

signed) Judith Rodrigue, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives
signed) Joan M. Albi, Secretary of the Senate

This Resolution was signed April 21, 1994...

JTCoyoté

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

[WakeUpAmerica]

So don't you agree that opening up the constitution to an amendment will only invite bankster manipulators since they are not even abiding by the constitution to begin with?

Instead of supporting changes to the constitution, we need to be exposing how the constitution is not being followed by the courts. We also need to support the 10th amendment resolutions which expose much of the fraud in the 14th amendment. Here is what JT and others in Colorado got passed in 1994, more work is needed:

WOW! that is a really great resolution, have they been able to exert it in cases of BS use of the patriot act?

I definitely agree with you that we should go back to the constitutional republic instead of falling further down the democratic rabbit hole of messing with the constitution. It is the supreme document and needs to be treated as such. We wouldn't even have these problems if they didn't treat the constitution like it is just some random piece of paper.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Sorry but the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with giving corporations inalienable rights. Go to the Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is an over 100 year old bullshit argument, it has been exposed, both Sotomayor and Ginsberg reiterated it. It is now a matter of public record. Corporations are not persons with inalienable rights, they never can be and they never will be no matter how much bankster propaganda is put forward. The 14th Amendment never usurped the Creator into granting manmade corporations inalienable rights. This is the entire issue we are fighting. All men are created equal...certain men cannot create another person which has rights that the Creator gave to men. It is a logically failed proposition and is directly against the entire foundation of this country, the idea of liberty, the idea of government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

I have never once heard anyone argue that corporations were granted, or could ever have been granted, inalienable rights.  The problem is, as is documented in SCOTUS after the adoption of the 14th amendment, that corporations enjoy personhood and the CIVIL RIGHTS (aka privileges) granted to "persons" who are citizens of the United States (which does not require one to be a Citizen of a State or even breathing).

It's not a bullshit argument, Dig.  Please read SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., which is the landmark where the 14th was first used to grant corporations the status of "person" under the law.  Without such precedent, cases such as the recent FEC v. AT&T would never have made it to SCOTUS, as the concept of "personal privacy" for corporations would have been a foreign concept altogether.  I was actually surprised that SCOTUS ruled the way they did, defeating their attempt to block FOIA... 5 to 4 is still troubling, though.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Dig, see LOCHNER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK for yet another application of what most would consider an inalienable right, here applied via the 14th Amendment (as a "right" and privilege enjoyed by all "persons")... substantive due process.

Any clear and concise measure to undo the damage of the 14th Amendment, with regard to providing Constitutional protections to corporations as if they are flesh and blood individuals, is a step in the right direction.

For a time-line view of the concept of corporate personhood, refer to Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers (PDF).

If you want to see the whole picture unfold before you eyes, read "The Transformation of American Law 1870 - 1960" by Morton Horwitz.

[Dig]

I have never once heard anyone argue that corporations were granted, or could ever have been granted, inalienable rights.  The problem is, as is documented in SCOTUS after the adoption of the 14th amendment, that corporations enjoy personhood and the CIVIL RIGHTS (aka privileges) granted to "persons" who are citizens of the United States (which does not require one to be a Citizen of a State or even breathing).

It's not a bullshit argument, Dig.  Please read SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., which is the landmark where the 14th was first used to grant corporations the status of "person" under the law.  Without such precedent, cases such as the recent FEC v. AT&T would never have made it to SCOTUS, as the concept of "personal privacy" for corporations would have been a foreign concept altogether.  I was actually surprised that SCOTUS ruled the way they did, defeating their attempt to block FOIA... 5 to 4 is still troubling, though.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific again is a complete BS rebuttal. SCOTUS never ruled that corps were persons in that decision (try to find it-IT DOES NOT EXIST!). It was reported by a Rockefeller/Rothschild owned court reporter and then the narrative was mockingbirded to make it appear as if that was the ruling. It never was.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals." Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18). San Mateo County, along with neighboring counties, filed suit against the railroads to recoup the massive losses in tax revenue stemming from Southern Pacific's refusal to pay. After hearing arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California Supreme Court sided with the county. Using the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, a law created so black litigants could bypass hostile southern state courts if they were denied justice, Southern Pacific was able to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A passing remark

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession." The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes

"In other words, to the [ex-railroad executive] Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision, written by Justice Harlan, ruled on the matter of fences, holding that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.

The Supreme Court's actual decision never hinged on the equal protection claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Furthermore, SCOTUS only has the power to deny legislation that is unconstitutional, they have no power to single handedly re-interpret the constitution and founding declaration of independence into something it is not. So even if you believe the fairy tail about Santa Clara, it means nothing. SCOTUS has no power under the constitution to amend the constitution via rulings.

More:

Actually this is also 100% wrong. Corporations have zero inherent power under the constitution and must prove their social value for the people from which they draw their power prior to being chartered. Again this is according to the constitution. However, in 1886, the railroads [Harriman/Rockefeller/Rothschild/Morgan/Carnegie interests] unconstitutionally "won" a supreme court decision to shift the constitutional restrictions on corporate power...

"large corporations as juristic persons have enjoyed certain constitutional rights intended for natural humans as the result of a misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Opponents claim that certain rights of natural persons, such as the right to political and other non-commercial free speech, are now exercised by corporations to the detriment of the American democratic process as provided under the Constitution. Some opponents point to the recent discovery of correspondence [1] between then Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, and court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis as proof of a conspiracy among the railroad corporations to intentionally create a misrepresentation of that decision for the benefit of the railroads. Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co."

The Supreme Court's limited accountability under the constitution is to validate whether congress' legislation is constitutional. They have no power to change the constitution via the argument that they are "better" interpreting the constitution. The idea of "judicial review" by the SCOTUS is a falsehood. The constitution is written at an 8th grade level and requires no "new" interpretation of what anyone can plainly see.

Moving on...

Both Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Ruth Ginsberg have exposed this unconstituionality of corporations in their final reviews. Ginsberg going so far as saying that when the Declaration of Independence specifically states that our rights are betowed upon us by our creator. These rights therefore they can never be granted for non-human entities, and a corporation is most definitely not human.

In addition...

John Perkins [Author pf "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and interviewed in "Fall of the Republic"]  has been going on the dook circuit also expressing this key issue as to how corporations are operating outside the constitution and therefore not allowing free market capitalism to take root again in the United States. He has some borderline beliefs IMO about sovereignty and world government, but his arguments are beyond reproach and his record as a truth teller and whistleblower leaves me in a state of awe.

I recommend looking into Sotamayor's review of te Clinton Movie courrt case and Ginsberg's interpretation of corporate power.I also advise you to read/watch/listen to Perkins.

I am hoping that it is obvious that when Corporations are allowed to circumvent the constitution and its protection of the free market, then the unconstitutional and anti-free market corporate power leads to a destruction of the proper and natural distribution of income based on freedom, responsibility, labor, and creativity. It is this issue that has allowed the unconstitutional corporations to yield power and then to purchase areas of the government to assist in their obstructive and anti-free market practices.

[Dig]

Dig, see LOCHNER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK for yet another application of what most would consider an inalienable right, here applied via the 14th Amendment (as a "right" and privilege enjoyed by all "persons")... substantive due process.

Any clear and concise measure to undo the damage of the 14th Amendment, with regard to providing Constitutional protections to corporations as if they are flesh and blood individuals, is a step in the right direction.

For a time-line view of the concept of corporate personhood, refer to Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers (PDF).

If you want to see the whole picture unfold before you eyes, read "The Transformation of American Law 1870 - 1960" by Morton Horwitz.

Again, a bullshit unconstitutional decision as exposed by Jonathon Wendell Holmes:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

198 U.S. 45
Lochner v. New York
ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF ONEIDA COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 292 Argued: February 23, 24, 1905 --- Decided: April 17, 1905

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES dissenting.

I regret sincerely that I am unable to agree with the judgment [p75] in this case, and that I think it my duty to express my dissent.

This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law.

It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we, as legislators, might think as injudicious, or, if you like, as tyrannical, as this, and which, equally with this, interfere with the liberty to contract. Sunday laws and usury laws are ancient examples. A more modern one is the prohibition of lotteries. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.

The other day, we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. United States and state statutes and decisions cutting down the liberty to contract by way of combination are familiar to this court. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197. Two years ago, we upheld the prohibition of sales of stock on margins or for future delivery in the constitution of California. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606. The decision sustaining an eight hour law for miners is still recent. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366. Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. [p76] It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law.

I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first instalment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss.

And that is the fact jack!

For even more micromanagement of why the ruling was bullshit, see Harlan's explanation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZD.html And if you think Harlan does not care about the civil liberties of the common man or the correct interpretations of the US founding documents...take a gather at his unbelievable ONLY DISSENTING VOICE on Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which clearly explained where SCOTUS did have power:
The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved...

If evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race. We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow-citizens, our equals before the law. The thin disguise of 'equal' accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead any one, nor atone for the wrong this day done.

Harlan, a clear defender of the rights of individuals, dissented on the BS NY case. And Holmes' explanation leaves no doubt who is in the right and what was really going on.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific again is a complete BS rebuttal. SCOTUS never ruled that corps were persons in that decision (try to find it-IT DOES NOT EXIST!). It was reported by a Rockefeller/Rothschild owned court reporter and then the narrative was mockingbirded to make it appear as if that was the ruling. It never was.

I'm NOT stating that Santa Clara made it so, I'm saying that it is used as precedent.

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. v. BECKWITH
It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, and the doctrine was reasserted in Mining Co. v. Penusylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 737.

However improperly cited, the precedent was used.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Dig, I'm not arguing for corporate personhood... quite the opposite, actually.  As far as actual rights are concerned, those referred to in the Declaration, corporations are certainly not entitled to shit.  HOWEVER, the 14th Amendment is THE vehicle which was used to provide separate but equal "rights" and "privileges" to persons, after which it was argued and upheld that corporations are indeed persons with regard to certain protections provided by the 14th Amendment... and therefore the Constitution.

Would you not agree that undoing this damage is important?  If the proposed amendment is not the correct course of action, so be it!!  Simply calling it bullshit does not exactly explain why it is such and what would be a better approach.  As I said, abolishing the 14th would be great, but I don't think the American public would understand the argument.  However, I don't think leaving it as-is and not providing clarity will result in any change whatsoever.

[Dig]

I'm NOT stating that Santa Clara made it so, I'm saying that it is used as precedent.

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. v. BECKWITH
It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, and the doctrine was reasserted in Mining Co. v. Penusylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 737.

However improperly cited, the precedent was used.

And when something is used as precedent...we need to go and investigate the actual ruling. When people do that, they see the truth. This is what Sotomayor and Ginsberg have exposed for us and we need to be explaining this to everyone. It is a scam, as big as the Private Federal Reserve, or the idea of a pure democracy. We need to be educated on how the scam started, what it is all about, and how to counter all of the false narratives. All SCOTUS cases that use Santa Clara to render their decision are bogus.

By the way, the powers that be know Santa Clara is bullshit and the people are waking up to this.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Another book on the subject of corporate personhood... "Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy" (PDF) by Ted Nace.

[Dig]

Dig, I'm not arguing for corporate personhood... quite the opposite, actually.  As far as actual rights are concerned, those referred to in the Declaration, corporations are certainly not entitled to shit.  HOWEVER, the 14th Amendment is THE vehicle which was used to provide separate but equal "rights" and "privileges" to persons, after which it was argued and upheld that corporations are indeed persons with regard to certain protections provided by the 14th Amendment... and therefore the Constitution.

To truly understand the fraud in the 14th Amendment, people must go back and investigate the original 13th Amendment, and the coup d'etat conducted by the banksters in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This requires doing some more detailed research. You can investigate here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=53794.0
http://www.amendment-13.org/
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=86802.0

Would you not agree that undoing this damage is important?  If the proposed amendment is not the correct course of action, so be it!!  Simply calling it bullshit does not exactly explain why it is such and what would be a better approach.  As I said, abolishing the 14th would be great, but I don't think the American public would understand the argument.  However, I don't think leaving it as-is and not providing clarity will result in any change whatsoever.

The American people are waking up to this. They are waking up to the fraud of the 14th Amendment, the further fraud of the misinterpretations of the amendment, the original 13th amendment, and the real reason that both Lincoln and JFK were assassinated. Adding more amedments with more "easy to misinterpret" language prepared by the banksters is BS IMO.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Adding more amendments with more "easy to misinterpret" language prepared by the banksters is BS IMO.

On this we agree entirely.  It is my opinion [and hope] that such proposals may serve the cause in that while most of the public is otherwise unaware of the issue, they bring the issue to light and force discourse.  I doubt we'll see any such amendment actually passed, but the fruit (hopefully) will be an increased interest in the subject matter at hand.  Of course, attention can be usurped by the shill media as well.  This is certainly an infowar and getting the information out there for the People to see is paramount.  With it, they can call the MSM on their bullshit, and hopefully begin the call to real action.

Just as Ron Paul ran in '08 with no misconceptions about his chances of winning and knowing the value of his campaign insofar as getting the message out, this too could be used for such a purpose.  However, being that politicians are typically the ones proposing such amendments, perhaps some background as to the individual(s) or group(s) promoting the idea is important for context?  http://movetoamend.org/about-us

[Kilika]

Now you're just nitpicking .  Granted, I'm all for not using certain words as much as possible for the way they have been used and abused.  However, the voice of the People and its influence upon those running for public office is the right being utilized by corporations and insofar as such is the target of this amendment.  That voice is a remnant of the democratic process which is part of our representative Constitutional Republic... oh noes!! I said democratic!!

Seriously, we don't have to go out of our way avoid words simply because they have been misused in the past.  They still have a meaning and purpose, and when used properly in context are void of any nefarious intent.  

However, if someone puts a capital "D" in front of that shit, jump all over 'em like a Congressman on a lobby gift.

Some here in these parts I suspect would disagree, as there are threads here about nothing but conditioning through various means, to include wordplay. And then there is the whole letter of the law thing! Bad habits are just bad. 

[JT Coyoté]

"The Constitution for The United States of America", should not be amended again -- until we have successfully weeded out all of the amendments subversively and lawlessly foisted, and then coercively ratified to empower the global corporation; after it had gained control of the federal government in the chaotic wake of the civil war; leeching from our Constitution, defacto "person-hood" imbued into this imperial corporation, beginning on February 21 1871.

The weeding tool we must use, (as Dig posted earlier) is our Constitutionally mandated and protected individual and sovereign state 9th and 10th Amendment power, to lawfully remove the usurping, infiltrating, foreign and domestic, corporate power cabol, and all of their false and fiat laws as well!

Period! End of report!

JTCoyoté

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money, first by inflation  
and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them, will deprive the people
of their property until their children will wake up
homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
~Thomas Jefferson

[Geolibertarian]

Was it a Constitutional amendment that bestowed the legal status of "personhood" to corporations?

No.

So it shouldn't take an amendment to revoke what should never have been granted in the first place.

[JT Coyoté]

Was it a Constitutional amendment that bestowed the legal status of "personhood" to corporations?

No.

So it shouldn't take an amendment to revoke what should never have been granted in the first place.

BINGO!!!

Oldyoti

"It is error alone which needs the support
of government. Truth can stand by itself."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
the State of Virginia - 1787

[Michal Ptacnik]

Not true. This is important, supremely important for the welfare of the people, it definitelly SHOULD take an ammendment. It would not be necessary but I would consider it to be good to use the form of an ammendment.

[Kilika]

Not true. This is important, supremely important for the welfare of the people, it definitelly SHOULD take an ammendment. It would not be necessary but I would consider it to be good to use the form of an ammendment.

My advise to you is "Duck!", because it's comin' your way after a statement like that.

[JT Coyoté]

My advise to you is "Duck!", because it's comin' your way after a statement like that.

I think he's just "shinin'" us...  

He came in like a cheerleader "Rah Rah!"... Never saying why just full of bluster and fact-less-ness...

So tell us why then, why do you think what you said is true... and I will show you how by repealing 4 of the 13 "Globalist Amendments"...  and returning a constitutionally ratified amendment back to it's rightful place, will accomplish the same thing and MORE.

JTCoyoté

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to
the federal government are few and defined. Those
which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite." ~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45

[JT Coyoté]

Was it a Constitutional amendment that bestowed the legal status of "personhood" to corporations?

No.

So it shouldn't take an amendment to revoke what should never have been granted in the first place.

Absolutely... It would only require the repeal of one congressional act and the removal of all of it's unconstitutional rules, regulations, and supporting legislation... and the dismantling of its unconstitutional agencies, done by congressional vote. You would not even have to touch the Constitution.

JTCoyoté

"If Tyranny and Oppression come
to this land, it will be in the guise
of fighting a foreign enemy."
~James Madison