If you could add one amendment to the United States Constitution, what would it be?

[martybegan]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

 

[occupied]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

 

[martybegan]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

 

[NoVote]

There should be an amenment to outlaw socialism and communism. I'll leave the final draft up to a board of American patriots.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I would make Christianity the National Religion with equal protections and freedom for all other religions, agnostics, and atheists. Despite the US being founded with a Christian mindset, Christianity is under attack. It took a Christian mindset to create the framework for the USA.

 

[martybegan]

I'd modify the 14th to end birthright citizenship. We need to stop the Russian and Chinese cottage industry of making Americans on vacation so that they have dual citizenship and then bring the whole family over. That's insane.

Changing the census to count only citizens would be a good part of that amendment.

 

[occupied]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

 

[martybegan]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

 

[sparky]

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

buying legislation is what is being addressed Marty

this fits here>

The 28th Amendment - American Promise


~S~

 

[martybegan]

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

buying legislation is what is being addressed Marty

this fits here>

The 28th Amendment - American Promise


~S~

Way to ambiguous to be actually workable.

People have the right to speech regarding their interests, that doesn't go away when they band together to sell something.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What would it be?

LET'S RUMBLE!

Balanced Budget

 

[MisterBeale]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

On most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundation of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms? Or the right to "privacy" and an abortion?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

/—-/ Great. And when corporations are no longer artificial people as ruled the USSC then they can no longer be taxed, sued or regulated. Then the FTC, FCC and half the IRS would no longer be needed. Smart thinking Einstein.

 

[occupied]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

I'm trying to get big dark corrupt money out of politics. If corporations reported their contributions like unions do there would not be so much of a problem here.

 

[22lcidw]

What would it be?

LET'S RUMBLE!

Balanced Budget

I believed that for decades. That is not happening. To many people will become impoverished and many others will live less comfortable lives.

 

[martybegan]

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

 

[martybegan]

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

I'm trying to get big dark corrupt money out of politics. If corporations reported their contributions like unions do there would not be so much of a problem here.

The do report their donations. but they also use PAC's, and Unions do the same damn thing. And other groups of people, the PAC's themselves, trade organizations, etc, do the same thing.

You just shifted gears from banning to reporting. Can you at least try to be consistent?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Limit the governments power of taxation. Income would not be taxed, and the wasteful spending in government would be eliminated.

Would probably look at a flat or fair tax along with a consumption tax. Essential needs such as food, water, medical services, housing, utilities would also not be taxed. Sales tax on non essential services and items would be increased. The idea being, you are the ultimate decider in how much tax you pay. If you want to buy a lot of stuff, then you will pay more taxes.

Also, when I say no tax on food and water, I mean, on actual food items, like meat, cheese, milk, bread etc. Junk foods like chips. Cake, cookies, soda, and all that would be taxed.

OR...

Maybe have a nominal tax on income but it is fixed and cannot change. It could still be progressive, in that, if you make under $100,000 your tax would be 5%, between 100k and 200k, 8%, 200k to 500k, 12%, 500k to 1million 15%, and 1 million+, 20%.

Then, you could make up the difference with a consumption tax. The idea is to let people keep more of their money and they can decide if they want to buy that new car, there will be a higher tax, but, because you get to keep more of your money, you will likely be able to afford that tax.

I dont know, just a thought. My main premise is, lower or eliminate income tax, and rein in government spending....

 

[MisterBeale]

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

 

[martybegan]

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.