Skip to main content

View Diary: Saving Our Democracy (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is something mysterious about the wording (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, elwior

    Why the restriction is limited to “for profit” corporations? Why not just have something like

    The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to [] legal entities established [] under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

    The rest of the proposed amendment would need to be tweaked accordingly in minor ways.
    •  Actually, as I reflect on this (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, elwior, Lensy, cybersaur

      I don't think that even that much is actually required. A much better amendment, in my opinion, would simply read

      The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to legal entities.
      The rest of the proposed amendment is specific to campaign financing, and could, if my revision of the proposed amendment were to be ratified, simply be implemented by an ordinary law, since the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's annulment of the previous law would no longer stand.
      •  IANAL but I'm guessing that with over a century (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Odysseus

        of a vast body of legal rulings and laws based on the concept of corporate personhood, it's not really feasible to end this concept by amendment (assuming it was even passable via the amendment process, which I don't believe it is at present). The legal, practical and economic implications would be vast, and not all in ways we'd like. It would be a huge mess.

        Instead, I think we should slowly chip away at it, by coming up with a series of restrictions on the concept of corporate personhood (including making corporate officers criminally liable for a corporation's criminal acts), such that he underlying concept might stand, but severely curtailed. At which point such an amendment could be passed, but really be moot by then.

        One way or another, we have to do something about the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. It's literally destroying democracy.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 11:21:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Given how hard it is for the nation (0+ / 0-)

          to agree on a constitutional amendment, it seems to me that going at it in a way that would require many amendments rather than just one would be very difficult.

          I imagine (fantasize?) that many if not most Americans would agree with something as simple as the short version I wrote above. I think it would have at least as good of a chance as an incremental series of longer, more complicated, less general ones.

          As for the web of laws that have been based on the growing legal acceptance of corporate personhood: yes, changes would be required. But isn't that the goal?

          •  This is going to become (0+ / 0-)

            the next "should we impeach or not" war, that will drain lots of energy for no reason. This amendment will not pass. Period. Too many senators are owned by corporations for it to be pasable. The only way to do this is by chipping away at CU legally. Which itself is going to be a tough battle.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:09:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site