[GPSCC-chat] Concerns about Move To Amend

[Spencer Graves]

On 12/3/2011 6:36 PM, John Thielking wrote:
> Hello all,
> I enjoyed helping with the Peace Fair table today.  We had a lot of 
> people come in towards the end.
> I have one concern however.  A petition was circulated from the Green 
> Party table today concerning Move To Amend. The petition was fine, 
> except that it had a specific amendment included that signers were 
> endorsing when they signed.  I'm not sure that people gathering 
> signatures were pointing out all aspects of the proposed amendment.  I 
> don't have the exact wording of the amendment on the petition in front 
> of me, but as I recall it had the same three points that Move To Amend 
> proposed initially, including corporations are not people, money is 
> not speech and lastly and of most concern to me a statement to the 
> effect that local governments should not have their laws preempted by 
> state or national laws or global treaties.  This last point was why I 
> specifically asked at the last general meeting that the Santa Clara 
> County Greens endorse Move To Amend only in a general way and to not 
> endorse any specific amendment. As I understand it this motion was 
> agreed to with no blocking objections.  Checking the web site that we 
> have on the bumper stickers we were selling 
> (http://www.movetoamend.org) I find a brand new proposal for an 
> amendment that has not a trace of the original point #3. See 
> http://movetoamend.org/amendment . I don't see any place to sign a 
> petition to support this version of the amendment.   We should have a 
> discussion at the next general meeting (well, the next general 
> BUSINESS meeting I suppose, one that is not just a party) about both 
> versions of this proposed amendment and have a discussion about how we 
> should proceed if we have people at the Green Party table who want to 
> have people sign a Move To Amend petition with a specific amendment 
> proposal on it.


It was my understanding that we would have an abbreviated meeting Dec. 
15, though the main "business" would be a party.  This is certainly a 
hot topic and worthy of both formal and informal discussion that evening.

> As a small business owner (sole proprietor) I am concerned that the 
> part of the newest proposed amendment that strips corporations of all 
> their rights will also strip small business owners of all their 
> rights, even though they are often already fully liable for all their 
> actions as individuals and are often not hiding behind the fig leaf of 
> incorporation. Unincorporated small business owners are people and 
> should be protected under the constitution the same as any other 
> "person".  The wording of the latest amendment proposal however 
> includes the term "Artificial entities", which could include the 
> common forms employed by small business owners such as sole 
> proprietorships and ficticious business names.  The only right still 
> protected if you are acting on behalf of a business is freedom of the 
> press. Because businesses are run by people who have to answer the 
> door when the state comes knocking, their rights as people who have 
> invested time and energy in their own form of free speech (making a 
> statement by building a web site or making a product) will likely be 
> violated if the business entitiy has no inalienalbe rights against 
> unwarranted search and seizure for example.


       I'm not an attorney, but I don't see that:  If you are a sole 
proprietor with or without a fictitious business name, the business is 
your personal property.  The Fourth amendment says, "The right of the 
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated .. ."  
There have doubtless been many court decisions that could be cited on 
the exact legal definition of "houses, papers, and effects", but note 
that it does not say "homes".  I would expect that "houses, papers, and 
effects" would include a farmer's barn, a journeyman's tools, and a 
shopkeeper's shop and contents.  Of course, we'd have to do further 
research to be sure.


> Money is not speech only during and to influence an election according 
> to this amendment and that may be an important distinction as money 
> used at other times definitely is speech.  Making sure the courts are 
> crystal clear about what it means to spend money at "other times" or 
> in "other manners" vs arbitrarily defining too much time or influence 
> as being related to an election is also important. The distinctions 
> that are attempted to be made between commercial and nocommercial uses 
> and speech even under current law are often contrived and often 
> violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the 
> law.  Copyright law and web site TOU contracts are a subject best left 
> to another discussion, however. Below is the proposed amendment in its 
> latest form:
> Thanks.
> Sincerely,
> John Thielking
>
>
>   Amendment
>
> *Section 1* [/Corporations are not people and can be regulated/]
> The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the 
> rights of natural persons only.
> Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability 
> companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, 
> the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under 
> this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through 
> Federal, State, or local law.
> The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the 
> People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be 
> construed to be inherent or inalienable.
> *Section 2 *[/Money is not speech and can be regulated/]
> Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or 
> prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own 
> contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any 
> way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot 
> measure.
> Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible 
> contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
> The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence 
> elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
> *Section 3 *
> Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the 
> freedom of the press.
>
>
>     Help Us Name The Amendment!
>
> What do you think the amendment should be called? We want to hear from 
> you!
> *Here are some ideas already proposed:*
>
>   * Amendment to End Corporate Rule
>   * Clean Elections Amendment
>   * Abolish Corporate Personhood Amendment
>   * Amendment to Remove Corporations from the Constitution
>   * End Corporate Personhood Amendment
>   * Making Democracy Real Amendment
>   * The Democracy Renewal Amendment
>   * Government of the People Amendment
>   * The 99% Amendment
>   * The Amendment to Liberate Democracy (or Our Republic)
>   * We the People Amendment
>   * The Amendment to Separate Corporation and State
>   * The Peoples Personhood Amendment
>   * Corporations are Not People, Money is Not Speech Amendment
>   * The Common Sense Amendment
>
> What do you think? Let us know. 
> <mailto:info at movetoamend.org?subject=Amendment%20Name%2FFeedback>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20111203/582738d6/attachment.html>