Skip to content

Post Contents

The contents of this site are intended to serve as support for those in the various groups across the United States making the arguments against corporate Constitutional rights (corporate personhood).

Taking on progressive critics of abolishing corporate personhood

  1. Taking on amendment critics, part I: James Marc Leas and Rob Hagar
  2. Taking on amendment critics, part III: Kent Greenfield
  3. Taking on amendment critics, part VI: Stephen Rosenfeld

Taking on conservative critics of abolishing corporate personhood

  1. Taking on amendment critics, part II: Vincent Todd
  2. Taking on amendment critics, part IV: Jeffrey Carter
  3. Taking on amendment critics, part V: Jeff Jacoby
  4. Taking on amendment critics, part VII: George Will
  5. Taking on amendment critics, part VIII: George Will (again)

Amendment proposals described and defended

  1. The Human Rights Amendment tackles corporatism, plutocracy and the Supreme Court
  2. Author of The Human Rights Amendment answers posed questions
  3. Move to Amend’s Steve Justino replies to posed questions
  4. Rick Staggenborg replies to posed questions

Move to Amend

  1. Move to Amend’s David Cobb stops in NYC during Barnstorming Tour
  2. Move to Amend’s Steve Justino replies to posed questions

What about unions?

  1. Corporate donations vs. union donations in our last election

History

  1. What the Founding Fathers thought about corporations
  2. History pages

Miscellaneous

  1. Why principled conservatives should support an amendment to abolish corporate personhood
  2. The U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend in the entire world
  3. How the abolition of corporate rights would go to far…
  4. Citizen United v FEC: an analysis
2 Comments
  1. Pat Ross permalink

    Like kind species regulation would seem to be the fundamental condition of all entities, including humans, within the parameter of legislation, and to cross those boundaries would logically serve no purpose except convenience by ignoring the fundamental makeup of the pertinent influences.

    Judging a person like a wild animal serves no purpose because it is a different species, has different needs, and is essentially not subject to the human condition, naturally.

    Judging a person like a corporation, or visa verse, serves no purpose because it is a different species, has different needs, and is essentially not subject to the human condition, by design.

    When humans devise regulatory systems meant for one species, and apply it to another species, it can be expected and anticipated not to work (which we know by trial and error), if not by common sense.

    No jury, No Judge, no Supreme Court, No God, No human being is capable of turning one species into another, and it is pure folly to try. This should be classified under the “what were they thinking?” category, for failure to recognize the species to which anything applies is unconscionable and void by operation of law as totally irrelevant.

    Though there may be similarities comparable between humans except for age, sex, and condition, there is no comparison to the corporate entity in that regard. Exceptions must be made with regard to those conditions, age, sex, etc. which justifiably are meant to govern human beings.

    Though there may be similarities comparable between corporate entities, except for age, size, condition, or situation, there is no comparison to the human being in that regard, and exceptions must be made with regard to those conditions, including age, size, condition or situation which justifiably are meant to govern corporate entities.

    To cross the boundaries of one entity and another, as with the corporate and the human being is not only adverse to the fundamental nature of the planet, but ignoring of the fundamental nature of anything on it, alive or not alive.

    Relevancy by comparability is everything that is known to human kind, and important to the significance of the business entity, or law and regulation is made in a vacuum, ignoring of both.

    To regulate one by the rules of the other is an investment in failure for being irrelevant, and unconscionably abusive, beyond the powers of any to misconstrue.

  2. Is the constitution really for everybody anymore? It seems that the few who gather, obtains the most results the squeaky wheel gets oiled. Too many who complain are the ones who do nothing?
    Then you have those that will and want to see democratic system work and the system will shut them up before they get a chance to proceed, because #1. They stand alone, #2. The system fabricates to make the public believe they are fanatical. #3. They the coordinators will not, out of fear allow that person to speak or take actions to help the cause, instead they shut them up, and take away all rights to advance. #4 they gather the influential in that county or state to ruin the character, and reputation for any validity to the proper cause. I ask you where is freedom today, is it rally for all? We need to stand jointly and take back our rights as our ancestor instituted in the establishment of The Constitution. Otherwise, America will never again be the same, after 2012, united as one for all #5. The pursuit of happiness cost some good citizens everything, even their lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35 other followers