7 Comments

  1. ZFB2

    I agree the Supreme Court has been out of line, or not correctly reading the lines of the United States Constitution regarding free speech, corporations, and state authority. If the current majority is as intellectually dishonest as you say, but intelligent, what's to stop them from creating a way to misread any new constitutional amendment that could go into effect?

    • pewestlake pewestlake

      A phenomenally good question that too few people seem to be asking right now. It really comes down to language and the wiggle room afforded the Court. If the Fourteenth Amendment had been written with the word "natural" before the word "persons," none of this would have happened. The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment might have felt that the phrase, "all persons born or naturalized," was enough to imply natural persons (and I sure do) but others claim that "natural" was deliberately left out as a time bomb the Court could explode with the right case. Either way, the Court is always careful to make their irrationality seem logical by some tenet of the Constitution (Bush v. Gore notwithstanding). The more you tie their hands, the harder it is for them to wriggle out of the constraint.

      That's why I drafted the Human Rights Amendment as a process-oriented, subtractive approach to the Constitution. Rather than trying to pile new law on top of old, complicating matters even further and giving the SCOTUS all kinds of wiggle room for interpretation, my approach is to remove the bad case law from the Constitution with a scalpel, eliminating the existing interpretations and restoring the original intent with regard to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Take a look at the proposal and compare its phrasing to the Bill of Rights. Unlike many subsequent Amendments, this one is relatively short and sweet, and written in plain English, with clear, unambiguous restrictions on the interpretation of the First and Fourteenth.

      We have to do something, otherwise we're just throwing up our hands and accepting the new abnormal. That's why I've been so eager to get the approach in the HRA out into wider view. I don't care if my language survives. I care that whatever does become an official proposal follows that example and doesn't complicate matters with more law when it's much simpler, and safer, to simply wind the existing case law back. Take a look and let me know if you think it would address your concerns: http://www.amendmentgazette.com/human-rights-amen

      Thanks for the insightful comment!
      Pw

  2. ZFB2

    Hello, and thanks for the response. I have already read through the Human Rights Amendment proposal, as well as others. Visualizing all the ways The Court may understand (or misunderstand), as well as shape (or misshape) any suggested amendment has to be the homework for anyone who wants the best possible changes. Often I read of people advocating Congress use this fundamental process for change, but they are not clear on what language they want. If the American people are to be fully supportive of Article V change, they need to be reassured that the new constitutional text of anyone will restore, and not abridge our Constitutional rights.

    • Rootstriker56 Rootstriker56

      ZFB2, aside from American suspects of terrorism, who have been murdered abroad, and OWS protesters, who have been dislodged from their protest sites, I don't know what rights you think need to be "restored." This cuts to the resolution that passed in the CA legislature which calls on Congress to pass "a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people…. " Restore what rights?

      Our fundamental principle is that people have rights and property (corporate charters) should never have been given rights. In other words, we don't want to "restore" rights. This is an abolitionist movement. Just as the early "radical" Republicans sought to abolish one particular property right, the right of people to own people, we seek to abolish all rights of properties. People should not, and no longer do have, the right to own people, and properties should not, and if we're successful, will not have the rights of natural persons.

      The issue is, the question that needs to be answered by abolitionists is, how will the abolition of corporate rights liberate humans? How will the abolition of corporate rights improve the human condition? It will, but it is not obvious from reading The Human Rights Amendment or any version of proposed language that abolishes corporate rights. That is part of our mission in the coming weeks: to spell out the benefits to humans of abolishing the rights of properties.
      My recent post Matt Bai is off the mark

      • pewestlake pewestlake

        Very well stated, Victor! This should serve as the foundation for a separate post.

      • ZFB2

        Thanks, and Understood. My point being: the American people’s rights are being abridged by expanded corporate power under “Citizens United”, and other court decisions that provide its foundation. If an amendment abolishes rights of properties to end this encroachment then that will be a desired outcome.


  3. I understand everything you say, but then I was born in 1941 and studied in public school and college the genuine history of our country. I read Clinton Rossitor in high school.

    The greatest threat to our democracy is the end of public education. I thaw occurred behind the scene as the business model replaced authentic research on LEARNING, like the “Principles of Learning” which were, in case you never heard this THE NEW STANDARDS RESEARCH ON THAT THEORY, FUNDED BY PEW.

    The media, controlled by the same people who managed to bring us CITIZENS UNITED, has sung th song of evaluation those bad teachers, and hooked onto a trillion dollar education industry. The purposeful destruction of learning is ongoing in Los Angeles (LAUSD) as a few key words in the extraordinary chronicle of corruption Perdaily.com, will show.

    But for the big story, the one which impacts this discussion because it shows that the Constitution will mean NOTHING to an ignorant population that is force fed policies mandated by the corporate entities and the wealthy plutocrats they represent.

    I beg you to put this in your browser, and spend time WATCHING listening to the “Inconvenient Truth about Waiting For Superman.

    They are taking over the education of our citizens. Constitutional arguments will mean nothing to the people who get all their information form entertainment news like Fox.

Comments are closed.