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: 427

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

John Muir replied to Todd McFarland's discussion The Little Things
"I'm a French press devotee myself. Best appliance I ever got for the kitchen was a hot water dispenser. It puts out near-boiling water (205 degrees), so I can just fill up the press and go to town - no heating water.  It's a…"
19 minutes ago
Salt Dragon replied to Todd McFarland's discussion The Little Things
"1) Reminding my sons that I love them only to be chided that they already know. 2) Waking up with lucid dreams and/or an erection. 3) Making French press coffee. 4) Getting on the train to work on weekdays. 5) Reading a good line or hearing a good…"
2 hours ago
Salt Dragon replied to Stewart M. Davenport's discussion Relatively new here; thought I'd say hello
"Hi Stewart, Welcome! I'm also an Eagle Scout, involved with my son's troop and a history major from when I was in college.  Being an electrician is definitely a stronger career path.  Congrats on your marraige and pending…"
2 hours ago
Todd McFarland joined Herb Munson's group
Thumbnail

The Great Debate

"Iron sharpens iron." A place for men to impact each other by debate and exchange of ideas. This is a group where no ideas are off limits. If your motto is, "I never talk about politics or religion," this group is probably not for you. A "gym" for thinkers.See More
7 hours ago
Todd McFarland replied to Sir's discussion Racking
"Since you only braced the bottom, I suggest you put some weight on the upper half and see if you are still satisfied with its stability before you make the other three shelves."
7 hours ago
Todd McFarland posted a discussion

Hike on Saturday

I love hiking.  I usually go alone, or with my dog.  The solitude and peace "up there" is, for me, unmatched in the world.Here's a GoPro video link if you want to follow me along. Warning: It is 20 minutes long and 3GB.https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vz5u717yr8u03e/South%20Mountain%20%282017%29.mp4?dl=0See More
7 hours ago
Todd McFarland replied to arnab banerjee's discussion lost art of indian manliness
"Interesting list of arts.  I don't agree that all of these are necessary for a man to learn, but hey, neither is Minecraft and I enjoy it in my downtime.  I look forward to your next post."
7 hours ago
Todd McFarland replied to Stewart M. Davenport's discussion Relatively new here; thought I'd say hello
"Welcome, Stewart!"
7 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service