<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 12/3/2011 6:36 PM, John Thielking wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">Hello all,</span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto"></span> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">I enjoyed
helping with the Peace Fair table today. We had a lot of
people come in towards the end.</span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto"></span> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">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. </span>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 (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
style="RIGHT: auto" href="http://www.movetoamend.org">http://www.movetoamend.org</a>)
I find a brand new proposal for an amendment that has not a
trace of the original point #3. See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
style="RIGHT: auto" href="http://movetoamend.org/amendment">http://movetoamend.org/amendment</a> . 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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="right: auto;">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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1322966192.69754.YahooMailNeo@web111105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="RIGHT: auto">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:</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Thanks.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Sincerely,</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">John Thielking</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto" id="content-header">
<h1 style="RIGHT: auto" class="title">Amendment</h1>
</div>
<!-- /#content-header -->
<div style="RIGHT: auto" id="content-area">
<div style="RIGHT: auto" id="node-3609" class="node
node-type-page">
<div style="RIGHT: auto" class="node-inner">
<div style="RIGHT: auto" class="content">
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><strong style="RIGHT: auto">Section
1</strong> [<em style="RIGHT: auto">Corporations are
not people and can be regulated</em>]</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">The rights protected by the
Constitution of the United States are the rights of
natural persons only. </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">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.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">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.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><strong style="RIGHT: auto">Section
2 </strong>[<em style="RIGHT: auto">Money is not
speech and can be regulated</em>]</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">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. </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Federal, State and local
government shall require that any permissible
contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">The judiciary shall not
construe the spending of money to influence elections
to be speech under the First Amendment.</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><strong style="RIGHT: auto">Section
3 </strong></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">Nothing contained in
this amendment shall be construed to abridge the
freedom of the press.<br>
</div>
<h2 style="RIGHT: auto">Help Us Name The Amendment!</h2>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">What do you think the amendment
should be called? We want to hear from you!</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><strong style="RIGHT: auto">Here
are some ideas already proposed:</strong></div>
<ul style="RIGHT: auto">
<li>Amendment to End Corporate Rule</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">Clean Elections Amendment</li>
<li>Abolish Corporate Personhood Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">Amendment to Remove
Corporations from the Constitution</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">End Corporate Personhood
Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">Making Democracy Real
Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">The Democracy Renewal
Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">Government of the People
Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">The 99% Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">The Amendment to Liberate
Democracy (or Our Republic)</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">We the People Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">The Amendment to Separate
Corporation and State</li>
<li>The Peoples Personhood Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">Corporations are Not People,
Money is Not Speech Amendment</li>
<li style="RIGHT: auto">The Common Sense Amendment</li>
</ul>
<div style="RIGHT: auto">What do you think? <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:info@movetoamend.org?subject=Amendment%20Name%2FFeedback">Let
us know.</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var> </div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org">sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss">http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.structuremonitoring.com">www.structuremonitoring.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>