9 May A.D. 2015
A couple of things to note.
In general, a corporation is the "agent" for the investors. As was discussed in the Hobby Lobby ruling, to talk about an entity to talk about the humans behind the entity. Since people have "religious (expression)" rights, their entities also have "religious (expression)" rights. Because an entity is recognized as having "religious (expression)" rights, the entities are sure to maintain their "freedom of expression, generally," rights.
Some more technically, note the type of process proposed: "Resolution." We don't have a "constitution," so the materiality of this distinction is greatly reduced from what it should be, but let's study into the path just to do it, anyway.
There are two processes for legislative activity: (1) Bills and (2) Resolutions. The language processed as a Bill is language that intends to "become law." The language processed as a Resolution is language that intends to become a Rule for either or both Houses.
In sum, not only is the language below (very bottom of this email) unlikely to make it through the "sausage making" process called the legislative process (one typically shouldn't watch the sausage-making process) but also, even if it were, we're not talking about a Bill but rather a Resolution.
Since there's "no story," there, this author wouldn't characterize the non-reporting of it by the popular propaganda outlets as anything like a "black out." More likely is a sensible use of limited resources, since that item is not likely even to make it out of committee. We'll see, of course. But, should there be a continued silence in this one, it'll likely be that it never went anywhere.
Epilog.
Why are administrative advisory panels not given authority to determine all the evidence, namely not only of fact but also of law? Because in our present reality, we're not really talking about law. Instead, we're talking much more about "agreement," and it's easier to cover that weakness by banning the concept completely rather than applying it sometimes and not all the rest of the time.
The language published these days as "Statutes at large" is in no way law for all of what is found published there. Even if processed as a Bill, it's way too often not "admissible evidence of law," because it's part and parcel of an agreement ("federal" means "federal," not national, not "constitutional," but rather "by agreement"), i.e., language that'll be codified in some title other than Title 18. That which is then also proposed as nothing more than a Resolution is in no way ever remotely intended to be law, and so, as with "everything else," if such language applies at any time, it'll be because the "target" consented commercially to that application of that language.
As for democracy's being a "right," that's not ever been the situation at any point in history pre-dating the times documented in Scripture. Democracy is the default form of government for any society as a matter of law. It's just "how it is." "Rights" have absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of a democracy (that form in which the legislative power is placed in the hands of and exercised by the people, directly).
As for America's future, that future, our future, is 100% dependent on when we stop using the "funny money." There is no corporate coup de etat. There's nothing whatsoever that we've been "forced" into. We've used the "funny money" 100% voluntarily, and if von Nothaus hadn't put "dollar" on his coins, there might be all kinds more use of honest weights and measures today than presently exists. The fact that our present and our future depend that much on what we use for our medium of exchange is a concept that'll likely never come to mind for a legislator, for they seem very rarely to have any clue what our present legal reality is or how this present system functions. From their point of view, since they're the legislator(s), America turns on what they do, and that's just pure Bravo Sierra. America's future doesn't in any way, shape, manner, or form depend on any item or group of items of legislation. Instead, America's future depends, at the threshold, on when we repent of our paganisms, including our use of "funny money." While we have direct control over our continued support of and participation in these various catholic/pagan holidays, we are a bit more dependent on the small business owners when it comes to using honest weights and measures. It's exciting to see how many small business owners are already allowing that alternative and to see how many more are studying into the difference.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
https://www.congress.gov/bill/
http://wallstreetonparade.com/
Corporate Media Blacks Out Coverage of Bill to Overturn Corporate Personhood
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 4, 2015
Congressman Rick Nolan, Leesa "George" Friday, and David Cobb at the Move to Amend Press Conference, April 29, 2015
Last Wednesday, the grassroots organization, Move to Amend, held a press conference at the National Press Club to announce that six members of the U.S. House of Representatives were introducing legislation to overturn Citizens United v FEC to make free speech and all other rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution available only to “natural persons,” not corporations or limited liability companies. The legislation would also give Federal, state and local governments the ability to limit political contributions to “ensure all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process.”
When corporations overturn the will of the people, it’s widely covered by corporate media. When the people fight back, the news is frequently blacked out. As of this morning, we could find no major corporate media outlet or corporate wire service reporting on last Wednesday’s press conference by Move to Amend. That might be because there was evidence presented at the press conference of a groundswell of public momentum to overturn Citizens United, the decision handed down on January 21, 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court that opened the floodgates to corporate campaign spending in elections along with super wealthy donors.
The press conference revealed that 16 states have passed resolutions asking Congress to overturn Citizens United while almost 600 municipalities and local governments across the country have done likewise. Almost two dozen other states have resolutions pending or introduced.
Congressman Rick Nolan of Minnesota spoke at the press conference, telling attendees that “Good and successful movements in this country have always started with ordinary people who commit to accomplishing great things. And so it was with ending slavery, with child labor laws, environmental laws, women’s suffrage, civil rights, the progressive income tax, Social Security, Medicare, rights for the disabled – you name it – this movement transcends labels, it transcends political parties, it transcends regions and it transcends generations.”
Nolan added that “America’s future and American democracy is dependent upon the success of this movement.” In addition to Nolan, co-sponsors of the bill include Mark Pocan (WI), Matthew Cartwright (PA), Jared Huffman (CA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), and Keith Ellison (MN).
Leesa “George” Friday, who has been part of this grassroots movement since its beginning in 2009, said “Democracy isn’t a gift that we’re given, it’s a right. And with that right comes the responsibility to do a little bit more than just go to the polls every now and then or volunteer for a campaign, write a check or make some phone calls. It means being vigilant about what democracy means; about holding sacred that democracy; and doing the work.”
David Cobb, a member of the National Leadership Team of Move to Amend and the Green Party presidential candidate in 2004, called what has happened a “corporate coup d’etat” and said the group was broadening its strategy to include “Pledge to Amend,” where candidates running for office will be asked to pledge to support a constitutional amendment in order to get the support of voters, the majority of whom despise Citizens United.
The corporate coup d’etat could not have happened, of course, without the vote of five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy with concurrence from Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The dissent was scathing. Written by Justice John Paul Stevens (who retired five months later), it was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. Stevens wrote:
“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”
The four dissenters also found that:
“The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907…We have unanimously concluded that this ‘reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process…’ ”
The view of the dissenters happens to dovetail with the majority view of the American people — meaning that five men in robes can overturn the will of a nation of 319 million citizens.
According to a 2010/2011 Peter Hart poll, 79 percent of Americans “support a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people.” An Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll released in 2012 found that 83 percent of Americans want campaign limits on corporations, unions and other organizations. The poll also found that 67 percent of Americans also want caps on what individuals can spend in campaigns.
In July of last year, Democracy Corps, the polling organization for Democrats, released a survey that found “a deep hostility to Super PACs” and “strong support” for candidates “who battle to reduce the influence of big money and for changes that empower the ordinary citizen…”
The poll was taken among likely voters in 12 states with hotly contested Senate races. On the issue of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the survey found overwhelming support, a “73 to 24 percent margin, including majorities in even the reddest states.”
This would not be the first time an out of control Supreme Court had to be reined in. Of the current 27 constitutional amendments, eight were enacted to overturn outrageously out-of-step Supreme Court rulings.
A recent joint analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation found just how perverted elections have become under the Citizens United decision. According to the study, in the 2014 midterms, one percent of one percent of the total population of the United States, “accounted for an astounding $1.18 billion in disclosed political contributions at the federal level.”
The study also looked at the zip codes where the wealthiest campaign donors reside. It will come as no surprise that just five zip codes in New York City, ensconced by Wall Street’s plundering herd, coughed up $80 million.
Other groups have joined in the valiant, mushrooming effort to overturn Citizens United. From Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to Free Speech for People, to burgeoning local grassroots movements, there is growing momentum to overturn the gang of five on the Supreme Court. It’s not a matter of if, it’s just a matter of when.
You can be a critical part of accelerating that outcome by taking one or more of the following actions:
Urge your Congressperson to sign on as a Co-Sponsor of House Joint Resolution 48.
Sign the Move to Amend petition and ask your friends to join you.
Sign up to volunteer with an existing local MTA group or start one in your community.
As one young woman stated in a Move to Amend film, “we need a democracy movement because we need a democracy.”
Bookmark the permalink.
? What’s Really Behind the Flash Crash Trader Prosecution?
Former Citi Trader Posts Nude Photos of Hungry Woman He Just Fed; Financial Times Thinks It’s a Calling ?
© 2015 Wall Street On Parade. Wall Street On Parade ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. WallStreetOnParade.com is a public interest web site operated by Russ and Pam Martens to help the investing public better understand systemic corruption on Wall Street. Ms. Martens is a former Wall Street veteran with a background in journalism. Mr. Martens' career spans four decades in printing and publishing management.
_____________________________
114th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 48
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - April 28, 2015
Mr. Nolan (for himself, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
“article ?—
“section 1. 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. Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person’s money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local governments 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.”.
A couple of things to note.
In general, a corporation is the "agent" for the investors. As was discussed in the Hobby Lobby ruling, to talk about an entity to talk about the humans behind the entity. Since people have "religious (expression)" rights, their entities also have "religious (expression)" rights. Because an entity is recognized as having "religious (expression)" rights, the entities are sure to maintain their "freedom of expression, generally," rights.
Some more technically, note the type of process proposed: "Resolution." We don't have a "constitution," so the materiality of this distinction is greatly reduced from what it should be, but let's study into the path just to do it, anyway.
There are two processes for legislative activity: (1) Bills and (2) Resolutions. The language processed as a Bill is language that intends to "become law." The language processed as a Resolution is language that intends to become a Rule for either or both Houses.
In sum, not only is the language below (very bottom of this email) unlikely to make it through the "sausage making" process called the legislative process (one typically shouldn't watch the sausage-making process) but also, even if it were, we're not talking about a Bill but rather a Resolution.
Since there's "no story," there, this author wouldn't characterize the non-reporting of it by the popular propaganda outlets as anything like a "black out." More likely is a sensible use of limited resources, since that item is not likely even to make it out of committee. We'll see, of course. But, should there be a continued silence in this one, it'll likely be that it never went anywhere.
Epilog.
Why are administrative advisory panels not given authority to determine all the evidence, namely not only of fact but also of law? Because in our present reality, we're not really talking about law. Instead, we're talking much more about "agreement," and it's easier to cover that weakness by banning the concept completely rather than applying it sometimes and not all the rest of the time.
The language published these days as "Statutes at large" is in no way law for all of what is found published there. Even if processed as a Bill, it's way too often not "admissible evidence of law," because it's part and parcel of an agreement ("federal" means "federal," not national, not "constitutional," but rather "by agreement"), i.e., language that'll be codified in some title other than Title 18. That which is then also proposed as nothing more than a Resolution is in no way ever remotely intended to be law, and so, as with "everything else," if such language applies at any time, it'll be because the "target" consented commercially to that application of that language.
As for democracy's being a "right," that's not ever been the situation at any point in history pre-dating the times documented in Scripture. Democracy is the default form of government for any society as a matter of law. It's just "how it is." "Rights" have absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of a democracy (that form in which the legislative power is placed in the hands of and exercised by the people, directly).
As for America's future, that future, our future, is 100% dependent on when we stop using the "funny money." There is no corporate coup de etat. There's nothing whatsoever that we've been "forced" into. We've used the "funny money" 100% voluntarily, and if von Nothaus hadn't put "dollar" on his coins, there might be all kinds more use of honest weights and measures today than presently exists. The fact that our present and our future depend that much on what we use for our medium of exchange is a concept that'll likely never come to mind for a legislator, for they seem very rarely to have any clue what our present legal reality is or how this present system functions. From their point of view, since they're the legislator(s), America turns on what they do, and that's just pure Bravo Sierra. America's future doesn't in any way, shape, manner, or form depend on any item or group of items of legislation. Instead, America's future depends, at the threshold, on when we repent of our paganisms, including our use of "funny money." While we have direct control over our continued support of and participation in these various catholic/pagan holidays, we are a bit more dependent on the small business owners when it comes to using honest weights and measures. It's exciting to see how many small business owners are already allowing that alternative and to see how many more are studying into the difference.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
https://www.congress.gov/bill/
http://wallstreetonparade.com/
Corporate Media Blacks Out Coverage of Bill to Overturn Corporate Personhood
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 4, 2015
Congressman Rick Nolan, Leesa "George" Friday, and David Cobb at the Move to Amend Press Conference, April 29, 2015
Last Wednesday, the grassroots organization, Move to Amend, held a press conference at the National Press Club to announce that six members of the U.S. House of Representatives were introducing legislation to overturn Citizens United v FEC to make free speech and all other rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution available only to “natural persons,” not corporations or limited liability companies. The legislation would also give Federal, state and local governments the ability to limit political contributions to “ensure all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process.”
When corporations overturn the will of the people, it’s widely covered by corporate media. When the people fight back, the news is frequently blacked out. As of this morning, we could find no major corporate media outlet or corporate wire service reporting on last Wednesday’s press conference by Move to Amend. That might be because there was evidence presented at the press conference of a groundswell of public momentum to overturn Citizens United, the decision handed down on January 21, 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court that opened the floodgates to corporate campaign spending in elections along with super wealthy donors.
The press conference revealed that 16 states have passed resolutions asking Congress to overturn Citizens United while almost 600 municipalities and local governments across the country have done likewise. Almost two dozen other states have resolutions pending or introduced.
Congressman Rick Nolan of Minnesota spoke at the press conference, telling attendees that “Good and successful movements in this country have always started with ordinary people who commit to accomplishing great things. And so it was with ending slavery, with child labor laws, environmental laws, women’s suffrage, civil rights, the progressive income tax, Social Security, Medicare, rights for the disabled – you name it – this movement transcends labels, it transcends political parties, it transcends regions and it transcends generations.”
Nolan added that “America’s future and American democracy is dependent upon the success of this movement.” In addition to Nolan, co-sponsors of the bill include Mark Pocan (WI), Matthew Cartwright (PA), Jared Huffman (CA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), and Keith Ellison (MN).
Leesa “George” Friday, who has been part of this grassroots movement since its beginning in 2009, said “Democracy isn’t a gift that we’re given, it’s a right. And with that right comes the responsibility to do a little bit more than just go to the polls every now and then or volunteer for a campaign, write a check or make some phone calls. It means being vigilant about what democracy means; about holding sacred that democracy; and doing the work.”
David Cobb, a member of the National Leadership Team of Move to Amend and the Green Party presidential candidate in 2004, called what has happened a “corporate coup d’etat” and said the group was broadening its strategy to include “Pledge to Amend,” where candidates running for office will be asked to pledge to support a constitutional amendment in order to get the support of voters, the majority of whom despise Citizens United.
The corporate coup d’etat could not have happened, of course, without the vote of five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy with concurrence from Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The dissent was scathing. Written by Justice John Paul Stevens (who retired five months later), it was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. Stevens wrote:
“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”
The four dissenters also found that:
“The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907…We have unanimously concluded that this ‘reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process…’ ”
The view of the dissenters happens to dovetail with the majority view of the American people — meaning that five men in robes can overturn the will of a nation of 319 million citizens.
According to a 2010/2011 Peter Hart poll, 79 percent of Americans “support a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people.” An Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll released in 2012 found that 83 percent of Americans want campaign limits on corporations, unions and other organizations. The poll also found that 67 percent of Americans also want caps on what individuals can spend in campaigns.
In July of last year, Democracy Corps, the polling organization for Democrats, released a survey that found “a deep hostility to Super PACs” and “strong support” for candidates “who battle to reduce the influence of big money and for changes that empower the ordinary citizen…”
The poll was taken among likely voters in 12 states with hotly contested Senate races. On the issue of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the survey found overwhelming support, a “73 to 24 percent margin, including majorities in even the reddest states.”
This would not be the first time an out of control Supreme Court had to be reined in. Of the current 27 constitutional amendments, eight were enacted to overturn outrageously out-of-step Supreme Court rulings.
A recent joint analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation found just how perverted elections have become under the Citizens United decision. According to the study, in the 2014 midterms, one percent of one percent of the total population of the United States, “accounted for an astounding $1.18 billion in disclosed political contributions at the federal level.”
The study also looked at the zip codes where the wealthiest campaign donors reside. It will come as no surprise that just five zip codes in New York City, ensconced by Wall Street’s plundering herd, coughed up $80 million.
Other groups have joined in the valiant, mushrooming effort to overturn Citizens United. From Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to Free Speech for People, to burgeoning local grassroots movements, there is growing momentum to overturn the gang of five on the Supreme Court. It’s not a matter of if, it’s just a matter of when.
You can be a critical part of accelerating that outcome by taking one or more of the following actions:
Urge your Congressperson to sign on as a Co-Sponsor of House Joint Resolution 48.
Sign the Move to Amend petition and ask your friends to join you.
Sign up to volunteer with an existing local MTA group or start one in your community.
As one young woman stated in a Move to Amend film, “we need a democracy movement because we need a democracy.”
Bookmark the permalink.
? What’s Really Behind the Flash Crash Trader Prosecution?
Former Citi Trader Posts Nude Photos of Hungry Woman He Just Fed; Financial Times Thinks It’s a Calling ?
© 2015 Wall Street On Parade. Wall Street On Parade ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. WallStreetOnParade.com is a public interest web site operated by Russ and Pam Martens to help the investing public better understand systemic corruption on Wall Street. Ms. Martens is a former Wall Street veteran with a background in journalism. Mr. Martens' career spans four decades in printing and publishing management.
_____________________________
114th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. J. RES. 48
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - April 28, 2015
Mr. Nolan (for himself, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
“article ?—
“section 1. 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. Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person’s money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local governments 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.”.
No comments:
Post a Comment