Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
Sat Mar 31, 2012, 08:24 AM Mar 2012

Eventually, you will have to make an effort to join us. Why not now? [View all]

Last week, I went to see Jeff Clements speak at Peace University in Raleigh, NC. Jeff is the author of, "Corporations Are Not People-Why They Have More Rights Than You Do And What You Can Do About It". At the talk and in the book, there is mention of the effort to amend the Constitution back in the favor of people rather than corporate entities. One such movement is the effort of Free Speech For People and their "The People's Rights Amendment". After he spoke, I asked him about the ALEC and wouldn't that present a problem. He said exposure of ALEC would eventually work against it, that sunlight could be our weapon. He thought a serious effort of working on this amendment state by state could change the conversation in our favor. Anyway, here is wording and a link:

The People's Rights Amendment

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/201

Please sign the resolution DU

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2012 #1
Thanks. mmonk Apr 2012 #31
K&R libtodeath Mar 2012 #2
Thanks. I signed the petition lunatica Mar 2012 #3
kic'd/rec'd/faced/tweeted & emailed!. . . . . . n/t annabanana Mar 2012 #4
OWNC RobertEarl Mar 2012 #5
Excellent. mmonk Mar 2012 #6
Awesome. Ed Suspicious Mar 2012 #7
Yes, Steve Forbes should be allowed to vote and give to campaigns. jerseyjack Mar 2012 #19
What is ALEC and why can't you just type it out? xtraxritical Mar 2012 #8
American Legislative Exchange Council supernova Mar 2012 #11
The Richie Rich motherfucking bloodsucking skankwad nutfuckers of the 1% who throw all the dough lonestarnot Mar 2012 #13
You left out Koch-licking and santorum-spewing.....let's get it right here. lastlib Mar 2012 #15
I thought that was understood by fucking all. I get nothing RIGHT! But for smelling the CON lonestarnot Mar 2012 #17
Sorry. Had to leave after the post. mmonk Mar 2012 #22
You're so cute.....! happerbolic Mar 2012 #28
I am? mmonk Apr 2012 #30
+1. On related subject, today is the last day we can contribute to Elizabeth Warren. Zorra Mar 2012 #9
Excellent reminders. mmonk Mar 2012 #21
Signed supernova Mar 2012 #10
K&R&signed!! SunSeeker Mar 2012 #12
This is great. An enthusiastic K&R! nt riderinthestorm Mar 2012 #14
did it gopiscrap Mar 2012 #16
Done felix_numinous Mar 2012 #18
Remember, states can call a Constitutional Convention anmd change this. They don't need Congress. jerseyjack Mar 2012 #20
The phrasing is contradictory, and fails to address the core issue of Citizens United eallen Mar 2012 #23
1 & 2 establishes the limitation to natural persons. mmonk Mar 2012 #25
So, does that give NYT (not a natural person) protection in publishing political editorials? eallen Mar 2012 #26
The issue with Citizens United is corporate personhood and money as speech. mmonk Apr 2012 #29
You didn't answer the questions: Would the NYT, a corporation, still have 1st amendment protection? eallen Apr 2012 #32
I did. The issue in question was do Corporations have Bill of Rights protections mmonk Apr 2012 #33
Was that a "yes"? Or a "no"? eallen Apr 2012 #34
This long overdue but I fear.............. Swede Atlanta Mar 2012 #24
Signed! onestepforward Mar 2012 #27
Did you see MSNBC this a.m. lonestarnot Apr 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Eventually, you will have...