Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ive introduced a Peoples Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward, Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around, said McGovern.
Ive introduced a Peoples Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward, Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around, said McGovern.
Appears as though these tools are too stupid to realize that this would include the congress and every other federal bureaucracy.
The District of Columbia Corporation is......a corporation.“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.
Appears as though these tools are too stupid to realize that this would include the congress and every other federal bureaucracy.
Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,
351.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Where is the constitutional provision for amending an amendment?so what? Amending it is an issue, but repealing whole amendments is A-OK?
Okie dokie
Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,
Most municipal governments are corporations.Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,
"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.
Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?
"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.
Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?
Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.
What next, the czar of political information and education appointed by the president during the next recess named Joseph Goebbels? Freedom of speech is essential in the preservation of one's freedom. But then again what would we ever do with out Pelosi telling us how to live and think. Just another example of where the real nut cases are in politics.
"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.
Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?
Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.
The thing is, money BUYS stuff - like political influence. Not everyone out there wants things that benefit everyone else. Some folks want things that only benefit them and actually hurt others. Such folks have been known to give large amounts of money to politicians who get elected and then reciprocate, by giving the original guys what they wanted to begin with.
Seems to me this is one very good reason for limiting the amount of money people can contribute to a cause.
Where is the constitutional provision for amending an amendment?so what? Amending it is an issue, but repealing whole amendments is A-OK?
Okie dokie
"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.
Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?
Most municipal governments are corporations.Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,
Oddball pointed that out above and I suggested an amendment to the concept of an amendment to the amendment.