| reply to franknalco
Re: A Failure to Amend Nonsense. There's very little wrong with our Constitution. The big problem is the fact that we've become complacent as voters and have abdicated our country to political parties that are largely controlled by corporate interests. Well, there's that and the fact that we've voted for a bunch of complete morons also.
The only major Amendment that's currently needed is one which declares once and for all that corporations are not people and money is not speech. This wouldn't even be necessary if we have voted in responsible people who had then made sound judicial appointments. Instead, the corporate monkeys have stacked the courts with justices that roll their way when these cases come up. In this case, it's been happening since the days of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. The founders were very wary of corporate influence and would never have considered corporations to have been people. Sadly, we've allowed our government to pervert the Constitution so that corporations now have personhood. If it weren't for this perverted interpretation of our Constitution, this Amendment wouldn't even be neccessary. Alas, it is. It's sad how little we as a people care about our government. |
|
| Are unions people? Does their money count as speech?
Looking for a little logical consistency here. |
|
| reply to Arty50
said by Arty50:Nonsense. ... The big problem is the fact that we've become complacent as voters and have abdicated our country to political parties that are largely controlled by corporate interests. I totally agree. That is why term limits are required for both Representatives and Senators.
said by Arty50: The only major Amendment that's currently needed is one which declares once and for all that corporations are not people and money is not speech. I don't totally agree. I am fine with corporations being "legal" persons, just not on par with "natural" persons. By this I mean that because corporations are "fictiticious" people, created by law by us, we can put any limits we want on them. We do not necessarily need to give them all rights that we as natural people have. I see nothing wrong with barring them from making campaign contributions, the use of lobbyists to help draft new laws, creation of political ads using corporate funds, etc.
I would also go further and address "free speech" rights like trying to call high fructose corn syrup a natural sugar. It might be derived from natural sugars but it is man-made. Nowhere in natural can you find it naturally. But then that opens the door to Monsanto or some other company genetically modifying crops to produce it. Oops, did I just give the shop away to corporate greed? |
|
