Nancy Pelosi and some House Dems have proposed the following Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Section 1.  We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons. 

Section 2.  People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution. 

Section 3.  Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

(N.B. Yes, this proposed Amendment is real.)

Personally, I don't think this will get anywhere. It's fanciful thinking but it will be too impractical to actually implement.

Though I did have a question about Section 3. Conservatives are calling Section 3 a scam (along with the entire Amendment, which I agree with) but here's my question: if Congress did abridge the rights listen in Sec. 3, couldn't suits still be brought against the laws, just like they are today? (an example being Obamacare). After all, such laws that abridge the aforementioned rights would still be violating the Constitution and would therefore be unconstitutional. So what's the hullabaloo about Section 3?

Thoughts on my question and thoughts on the Amendment as a whole?

Views: 430

Replies to This Discussion

This is scary beyond belief.  Section 1.  'natural persons'.  Like we haven't opened this can of worms already, but if an ammendment, shouldn't it state ammendment rather than Constitution?  But wait, there is more.  If the point is in Section2: natural persons are not corporations, etc. you are still left with the Congress attempting to define what natural persons are.  With issues such as immigration, health care, etc. dominating the current political landscape, why would Congress want to define a natural person.  Is an immigrant a 'natural person'?  What about unborn?  This becomes an untenable definition to construct, as there is no consensus currently about that.  And section 3: if you have to clarify that this does not affect the Bill of Rights, why do it in the first place? 

Perhaps, Congress should write and pass a law (you know, their job) that takes from the the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and make sure it passes not only Constitutional muster, but also the precedent set by SCOTUS the century prior?  To me, this seems like a cheap way to act without attempting to seriously address the problems.

RSS

Latest Activity

Liam Strain replied to Sir's discussion Total eclipse 8/21, US mainland
"We had 97% in ATL. Were not able to make the drive north to see the full shebang (I got called in on a contrac), but should be able to see the next one in seven years. A couple shots from Little Five Points."
23 minutes ago
David R. replied to David R.'s discussion Do you speak German fluently?
"Thank you, Christian.  Here are the English and the (Google) German translation.  (I am hoping that I was successful in attaching a file to my Word document.  I guess we'll just have to see if it worked.)"
4 hours ago
Christian Schmidt replied to David R.'s discussion Do you speak German fluently?
"I can help you with that. Native born German and pretty much fluent in English."
5 hours ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Total eclipse 8/21, US mainland
"Yes.  Saw a ring of fire around a black disk.  Supposedly it was the corona, but it was plenty bright. Had so much fun looking thru my 2 pinhole cameras, seeing it on my tablet, and an occasional look thru eclipse glasses."
6 hours ago
David R. posted a discussion

Do you speak German fluently?

A lady came to my church's weekly food pantry (which used clothing as well) who told the ladies there that she couldn't understand them because she only speaks German (which may or may not be true).  I told the ladies that I would have a simple set of rules translated into German, and with my one year of German in high school, I could show and read to her these rules next week.I translated using Google from English into German.  Are any of you guys able to check my Google translation for…See More
6 hours ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion Total eclipse 8/21, US mainland
"Fancy. I got a piece of polished obsidian from the geology room and looked through that."
7 hours ago
Native Son replied to Sir's discussion Total eclipse 8/21, US mainland
""After action report" Readied the telescope and target paper (Old middle school science technique. Made, tested, and readied pinhole viewer. And then got 10/10 SF Bay Area marine layer (high fog) on the morning. AND, got one of our…"
7 hours ago
Portnoy replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"Reading comprehension fail on my part with the Treyvon, my apologies. I wanted to recognize this on its own."
7 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service