New question: What should be in a Constitutional amendment to reverse today's SCOTUS decision.

[backscatter712]

I know, the gist needs to be "Money is not speech, and corporations are not people, thus not protected by the Bill of Rights."

I'm curious how to codify this. How would the language be written in a Constitutional Amendment that would leave no question as to Congress's authority to regulate campaign financing, political advertising, and corporate influencing of the political process?

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase the amendment to do this, ideally without side effects that would squelch free speech for real person (flesh and blood, not corporations.)

[DumpDavisHogg]

1. I'd try this link...

You can try this:

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/amendment

[backscatter712]

6. Very nice!

Definitely a good start.

[Statistical]

9. I like it.

[PSPS]

2. Constitutional Amendments need 75%. Will never happen with billions spent against it by corps.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Either we try, or die trying

I was told years ago that I could not change the law of my state to outlaw paperless voting. Diebold had millions to spend, and I had nothing. Diebold was the dominant player in the state, had the ear and total confidence of the board of elections.

Today the law in my state says no paperless voting and Diebold no longer does business in the state.

It can be done, if people want it bad enough. All it takes is people willing to not quit because people tell them "it can't be done".

[scheming daemons]

3. Simple: "The Bill of Rights applies to individual persons only, and to no other entities"

Boom. That's it.

[47of74]

4. And any attempts to circumvent this amendment...

...will be considered a felony that will be punishable by life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. I think the natural born person thing is a good one

And well established. If you didn't fall out of a womb, you're not a person. We will need this distinction in the future anyway, as software gains self-awareness.

[MiniMe]

7. I agree with the born person part, but adding "natural" would open up a can of worms

What about kids who are born by c-section? Do they not have rights? And somewhere along the line, it would turn against undocumented workers, and then they don't have any rights.

[Statistical]

10. What about future artifical non womb persons.

By your logic could vat grown humans be treated as slaves without violating the constitution.

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. A corporation is not a biological human entity.

The difference is huge. It would not be a problem. Once the corporations are throttled, fractured and dispersed they will not have the resources to bring up the ridiculous argument to a no longer corporate-chosen SC. An amendment must be accompanied by anti-trust breakups, new taxes, new regulations, aggressive attrition of board members and massive defunding by the public. It's a generational war. They have been fighting it since the late 19th century.

[Statistical]

14. I agree 100% that corps aren't biological.

I just think the line can't be drawn at a womb.

I think the line can be drawn to exclude "legal entities" like corporations, LLC, etc without affecting future generations of humans "born" via "unnatural means".

[Gold Metal Flake]

17. And I think this sub-thread is peopled by the wit-impaired.

"If you didn't fall out of a womb, you're not a person." That's a funny line, not an actual suggestion for the exact legal wording of a Constitutional amendment, FFS.

[stellad]

8. Easier to expand the Supreme Court to get a new majority and overturn their crap

[Gold Metal Flake]

11. You can't pack the court with this Congress.

It was tried with a much more effective and charismatic President. Didn't work.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Holy Joe wouldn't like it

so it ain't going to happen. Remember the new math 41 > 59 and in the case of Joe Lieberman, 1 > The President, and the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I missed this thread when I posted the same question

but here was my first attempt:

"Corporations, partnerships, and all other "artificial persons", shall exists at the sufferance of the People, and shall enjoy only those rights and privileges, mandated by the People, while complying with all duties and responsibilities expected of the People."

I see that someone added to a similar amendment:

No part of this amendment shall be construed as abridging the freedom of the press.

The amendment cited earlier addresses just the free speech aspect, whereas this language puts corporations completely under control of "the People".