We move to amend the constitution
by: Dave Belden on January 25th, 2010 | 11 Comments »
Liberty -- just an idea in a museum?
I have dived into our last two weeks of getting the print issue of Tikkun to press and have not found time to blog or visit the blogosphere. But this says what I want to say better than I could: an email from my friend Phil who had it from his friend Joanne, so pass it on:
IMPORTANT , PLEASE READ. ( Maybe last chance to save Democracy ) Go to address below to protest Supreme Court Decision. (Received this from an alert friend)
Think well of yourself. Don’t suffer. Don’t be disappointed.
Do something. Here’s a petition you can sign. Or, sign another petition.
As Audre Lord said, “Your silence will not protect you.”
Joanne“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” — Teddy Roosevelt
“I hope we shall…crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
“The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans. It won’t be Democrats. It will be corporate America.” — Chuck Schumer [yesterday in rare populist moment]
From www.MovetoAmend.org [go to this site to sign the petition]
“We the corporations”
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
- Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
- Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
- Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.
I am English and support this movement with every fibre of my being……….not just because I love America but because this corporate dynamic affects the whole planet, not least in my country where its influence is far greater than our so-called free press will reveal….Murdock is interested in power, not truth…………who owns the American media?………..Hah!!……….my blessings and thanks for your valiant efforts to change the rules of power….with love to you all, Tony Roeber
Tony, I really share your feelings about things in the US affecting the whole planet.
Around the time of one of the Bush elections, some Europeans were being interviewed for their thoughts on the subject and the question arose as to whether the entire world should vote in United States elections. I believe it was a German man who felt they should (and I wholeheartedly agreed with the concept) because of the profound effect our policies have on the rest of the world.
What our government does in America often has a swift, too often deadly, effect on citizens of countries many Americans have never even heard of. (I remember the massive numbers of maps that were published the first time we attacked Iraq.)
Then, there have been all those “coalition” forces, a great many of whom were sent from Great Britain and never came back.
Look what our financial failures have done to Iceland, from which all the “fat cats” have now fled, leaving “the people” to pick up the pieces. It goes on and on.
Blessings to you, too.
I have copied and pasted this and sent it to my own personal list with a request that they forward to their lists AND also forward to their congressional representatives, which I have also done.
Thank you for this.
The long-active pro-democracy watchdog group Public Citizen (of which I am a member in addition to the Network of Spiritual Progressives) is behind this movement to amend the Constitution. Absent a significant change in the composition of the Supreme Court, which could reverse this recent decision, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems the only way to undo its damage. Given the way in which the SC is the court of last appeal (apart from the metaphorical court of the democratic process that can pass an amendment to the Constitution), even the U.S. Congress (by itself) cannot reverse the decision.
Amen to the move to amend!
Motion signed, with this added statement…
A corporation may well be an individual entity but, being controlled by few while reaping funds from many who may or may not be supporters of the corporation’s opinions and policies, it should never be allowed an unrestricted voice in our election process, nor even a dominant voice. Only individuals of blood, sweat and tears, of love, hope and dreams, should ever be allowed to determine the outcomes of our elections. Corporations should exist only to serve the needs and desires of human beings, and their success or failure should rest solely upon their ability to satisfy such needs and desires, not only in the short run but also in the long term and in a sustainable manner. In other words, corporations should serve at the will of the people.
Yes, I too, agree!
I am joining Eileen Workman to generate a groundswell of citizens in support of a Constitutional Amendment to explicitly DENY corporations “personhood” status.” We are at a vital crossroads in our country and it is time for us to make the corporations back up out of their ASSUMED privilege and return access to our Congressional representatives to the “natural persons” the Constitution was written to protect and empower. I know of no other single act which could catalyze our citizenry as powerfully, immediately and positively as this one. http://www.Change.org recently launched an “Ideas for Change in America” competition, and Eileen has submitted this idea I’d love you to support.
Please vote for this Constitutional Amendment idea, by clicking on the link below and you can vote in less than 20 seconds.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/constitutional_amendment_to_explicitly_deny_corporations_personhood_status
The top 10 voted ideas will be presented at an event in Washington, DC to relevant members of the Obama Administration, and then promoted to Change.org’s full community of more than 1 million people. So we could have a real impact.
Also, please go to http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/user/register and sign petition.
As this horror show continues to unfold, like an avalanche from a melting glacial mountain peak, I can only continue to wonder, as I have for decades, what, if anything, will awaken the slumbering drones to our plight. With seven decades of awareness of the realities of human fears and foibles, watching the condition become malignant, my awakening each morning is one of concern. A very few try to hold back the deluge, against overwhelming pressure. My poor, dear granddaughters, ages two and five, how my heart weighs heavy for you and your generation–if that is to be.
Although I agree with the proposed constitutional amendment, it doesn’t go far enough
Lord Acton: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
There is no better definition of any Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has been wrong on every important constitutional issue, except when it reverses precedent, since one of the two decisions almost has to be right. (Theoretically, a partial reversal could be right.) The only difference between the “corporate speech” decision and previous ones is that in the past the precedent has been wrong, whereas this time the reversal is wrong.
The worst of all possible Supreme Court decisions is never mentioned any more, because both pro-corporate elites (Democratic and Republican activists alike) are satisfied with it, while our self-censoring media pay no attention to voters who object to anti-democratic actions. I am referring to the decision to give some groups of partisan activists who call themselves political parties the right to determine how we select presidential nominees. It is reasonable to infer that I usually agree more with the people of Iowa than those of New Hampshire. But how can you justify allowing less than half as many Iowa caucus participants to select more than twice as many delegates to the national presidential nominating convention than more than twice as many voters in the New Hampshire primary do?
Members of all three branches of government take the same oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution, so why does the one unelected branch arrogate the power to decide what the Bill of Rights means? Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court that right. The argument that this was generally understood under British rule is invalid. The British High Court very rarely gets involved with constitutional questions – and never by one vote or on an important decision.
Also, it is important to remember that the Declaration of Independence, chiefly the first part of the second paragraph, becausde the rest is ancient histrory, is the foundation of our country, while the Constitution written by a bunch of wealthy planters and busdinesmen who didn’t need any support from ordinary people, as they did in the Revolutionary War, is merely the foundation of our system of gvernment, which the people explicitly have the right (but not the power) to change.
The 2000 Florida case is not a good example to cite. There is a constitutional deadline for electors to meet. Waiting for a recount for a Senator or governor is not serious, but leaving the leadership of the country in doubt is. (Even Ruth Ginsberg Bader, the most “reasonable liberal” acknowledged that the Supreme Court felt that we were facing a constitutional crisis.
The fundamental problem in Florida was the crazy butterfly ballot (apart from hanging chads). The Secretary of State had shown the ballot in advance to both the Democratic and Republic state “parties” and neither one objected. When a combination of media and other objective recounters finished recounting the ballots in late March, they found that if the votes in the counties where Gore had requested a recount had been thoroughly rechecked, it would not have changed the result of the election.
If all of Florida had been recounted, the result would have depended upon whether or not objections to voters were deemed valid and how the disqualified voters would have voted. There was certainly evidence that some voters had been prevented from voting because they had the same names as voters who weren’t qualified. There is also clear evidence that the butterfly design resulted in voters casting a vote for a candidate other than the one for whom they had intended to vote. Remember there were numerous other candidates on the ballot (and they had a constitutional right to be there), but when you have what, for all practical purposes is a tie (as we did in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, finally decided in June, but with the judge-dominated three-stage recount decision being no more reliable, in my opinion than the morning-after recount by citizen judges), every vote for any candidate can make a difference. The presumptions that votes cast for a certain candidate would have overwhelmingly gone to a particular major party candidate is extremely arrogant and unjustified.
So until we establish a democratic method of choosing all candidates, don’t expect a system of fair government. (Corporations, including media, can’t vote, so why should we give them any political power? For that matter, why should we give them ANY power? Abolish all laws providing for corporations anhd tuern them into co-operatives. Then we will also have democracy in the private sphere.)
Shutdown the Department of Homeland Security, It Reminds me of THE Gestapo IN WW2 Germany
speechless