Problem Solved
January 30, 2010 2 Comments
Amendment 28
- The rights and freedoms granted in the Constitution apply as rights only to individual, natural persons. With regard to corporate entities these rights may be restricted or repealed by Congress, by the legislature of any state, or by any local government at any time through the normal legislative process.
- Individual, natural persons within the United States retain all their Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms regardless of the status of these rights for corporate entities. The rights of individuals may never be restricted or repealed, except as explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
I’m not sure if Section 2 is necessary, but I’d feel pretty dumb if I accidentally got everyone’s rights eliminated due to poor phrasing or an unexpected interpretation of the amendment. Kind of like how Texas may have accidentally outlawed marriage, which I think is hilarious, but it’s still a lesson for anyone messing around with the law. Also, I figured it couldn’t hurt to reestablish that our civil rights apply to everyone “within the United States” and not just to citizens. Some people seem to have forgotten that.
About Sercan
Nice idea indeed!
We would finally be able to demolish the Labor Unions since individuals have the right to assemble, not incorporated entities.
We would finally be able to make it illegal for the American Red Cross to send any aid whatsoever to our enemies or nations or groups that we don’t like.
We would be able to silence a lot of those pesky media companies since much of what they say doesn’t meet the strict definitions of “news” by previous SCOTUS decisions.
Oh, and by the way, constitutional rights are only allowed for non-citizens through a decision of the SCOTUS, one that might be seen to be just as bad as you obviously consider Citizens United to be.
“We would finally be able to demolish the Labor Unions since individuals have the right to assemble, not incorporated entities.”
Isn’t this point a little moot given that unions lack the physical presence required to assemble? Union members, however, have a physical presence and constitutional protections.
“We would finally be able to make it illegal for the American Red Cross to send any aid whatsoever to our enemies or nations or groups that we don’t like.”
I’m reasonably sure the government already has the power to prohibit both corporations and individuals from doing that. And I don’t think it’s a speech issue. Try sending money to Hamas and see what happens.
“We would be able to silence a lot of those pesky media companies since much of what they say doesn’t meet the strict definitions of “news” by previous SCOTUS decisions.”
It’s likely that this amendment would allow Congress or state legislatures to limit or ban corporate ownership of media outlets, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I’m also not sure it’s that radical. The FCC already has the power to regulate the number of TV and radio stations a corporation can own. Either way, the Constitution requires there to be a free press, and individual journalists have their 1st amendment rights, so regardless of the status of corporations, the media itself is still protected. At most Congress could mandate a different ownership structure.
You got me thinking, though. Maybe I should add a 3rd section saying that non-profit corporations that aren’t under the umbrella of any larger corporate entity cannot be prohibited from owning a single media outlet.
“Oh, and by the way, constitutional rights are only allowed for non-citizens through a decision of the SCOTUS, one that might be seen to be just as bad as you obviously consider Citizens United to be.”
So you’re agreeing that non-citizens do have rights under the Constitution? How is that different from what I said?