Amendment 28 – Separation of Corporation and State
And the Chelseagreen posting
My suggested amendment:
- Rights enumerated or reserved under this Constitution shall be accorded only to individuals. No State or the United States, shall make or enforce any law which shall recognize any corporation, partnership, organizational entity or other legal structure of capital as having rights.
- Citizenship is restricted to individuals. No State or the United States shall make or enforce any law which shall recognize any corporation, partnership, organizational entity or other legal structure of capital as a citizen.
- Any portions of any present or future treaty that include any such recognition that is prohibited by this amendment are null and void.
- Foreign citizens and corporations shall have no standing to challenge in any court, this amendment or any law that enforces this amendment.
- The Congress shall have the power to prosecute any court cases under this amendment. If the Congress so chooses, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
- Congress may choose to try any corporation through the established impeachment procedures. Should a corporation be convicted, the corporation shall no longer be recognized as a legal entity in the United States. Any legal protection provided by the corporation is rendered null and void.
- The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
To the readers who say this is too radical, I will point out a few things.
- Corporations do have a place in the modern world.
- Responsible corporations do exist.
- Only human beings and living things suffer truly irreversible harm — a corporation as a convenient legal fiction should not be allowed to permit human beings to willfully and irresponsibly cause permanent harm to others.
- It is only when everyone realizes that they may be held personally liable will human beings be truly treated as human beings.
- Responsible corporations will rise to the occasion, irresponsible corporations will be punished first in the stock market, then by the courts.
Some Notes:
- I single out treaties because treaties ratified by the Senate have the force of law. This is a backdoor mechanism that is used to create new laws without going through the normal democratic process. [Update: there have been numerous cases under NAFTA where foreign companies have sued to get local laws thrown out - under pain of heavy fines. So effectively NAFTA bypassed the will of the people.]
- As has been proven by the Bush the lesser administration, laws are meaningless if the executive chooses to ignore them. Congress should have a separate mechanism to enforce this amendment.
[Update: removed some slippery loopholes in original version.]
[Update #2: the reason for the prohibition on foreign nationals/corporations from suing, is because many corporations have decided that it would be best to be foreign rather than U.S. based for tax reasons. Now they would have a reason to come home.]
My suggested changes in ALL CAPS. Thanks for your effort.
There will also likely have to be an amendment dealing with media.
1. Rights enumerated or reserved under this Constitution shall be accorded TO CITIZENS only AS individuals. No State or the United States, shall make or enforce any law which shall recognize any corporation, partnership, organizational entity or other legal structure of capital as having THE rights OF CITIZENS.
2. THE RIGHTS OF Citizenship ARE restricted to individuals. THE United States NOR ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT shall make or enforce any law which shall recognize any corporation, partnership, organizational entity or other legal structure of capital as a citizen.
3. Any portions of any present or future treaty that include any such recognition that is prohibited by this amendment are null and void.
4. Foreign citizens and corporations shall have no standing to challenge in any court, this amendment or any law that enforces this amendment.
5. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS FIRST DUTY OF ENFORCEMENT to prosecute court cases under this amendment. THE CONGRESS IS HEREBY GRANTED SUPPLEMENTAL PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD CONGRESS DECIDE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT PROPERLY PROSECUTING ANY COURT CASE, AS DECIDED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. If the Congress so chooses, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. [(?) NOT SURE WHAT THIS LAST SENTENCE MEANS (?)]
6. THE MECHANISM OF TRIAL WILL BE through the established impeachment procedures, SUCH THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL PROFFER CHARGES AND THE SENATE WILL DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. Should a corporation be convicted ON ANY CHARGE BY ANY BRANCH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the corporation shall no longer be recognized as a legal entity in the United States, with any legal protection provided by the corporation rendered null and void.
7. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SHALL ENFORCE THE CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED LAWS THROUGH CONGRUENT REGULATIONS AND JUDICIAL ACTION.
8. ONLY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND ENGAGEMENT IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY. CORPORATIONS AND OTHER BUSINESS ENTITIES ARE EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED FROM ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT; PROHIBITED FROM MAKING MONETARY OR NON-MONETARY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN SPEECH INTENDED TO INFLUENCE VOTER OPINION; PROHIBITED FROM INFLUENCING IN ANY WAY SELECTIONS FOR SUPREME COURT OR OTHER FEDERAL COURT APPOINTMENTS; PROHIBITED FROM GIVING MONETARY OR NON-MONETARY GIFTS TO ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL; PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING UNSOLICITED INFORMATION TO ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL.
9. REGARDING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, THE BEHAVIORS OF FOREIGN-CHARTERED CORPORATIONS WITHIN US BORDERS SHALL BE LIMITED AS IF THEY WERE US-CHARTED CORPORATIONS.
@Mark J-
Thanks for the feedback…. with the usual IANAL caveat:
Re: Clause 1 – o.k.
Re: Clause 2 – You actually inverted the meaning! You missed a “NEITHER” . You should have written:
Re: Clause 5 – its better to separate the executive branch’s responsibilities from the Congressional Powers. But not certain what the addition of the executive branch clause (5a) adds to this amendment. I prefer my original. Also, this now makes it so that the executive branch always gets first crack at the prosecution. My original version allowed the executive branch to be bypassed entirely.
Re: Clause 5b “Original jurisdiction”: normally Supreme Court has “appellate jurisdiction” which means the Supreme Court only hears cases after the trial has occurred. The Supreme Court has the ability to refuse to hear an appeal. For some cases, most notably two different States suing each other — the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” which means the Supreme Court tries the case.
Re: Clause 6 — “ON ANY CHARGE BY ANY BRANCH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” I would strike this. This phrasing means that if a corporation is not a perfect citizen, for example, loses a battle with the IRS, the corporation ceases to exist. Too draconian. I prefer the requirement of a conviction by the Senate for such a severe action. This phrase alone would kill this amendment’s usefulness (and likelihood of passage)
Re: Clause 7 — modifications don’t seem to be necessary either. The laws that get created are usually written to direct a executive department to craft the enabling regulations.
Re: Clause 8 — Disagree with your changes. If we are restricting rights to Citizens as defined in clauses 1 and 2. What does clause 8 add to the mix? The campaign financing is completely orthogonal to the “personhood” issue. This creates the potential for mischief as an enterprising lawyer could argue that because a right was not listed in clause 8 — that the corporation would be entitled to say the right to not have soldiers quartered on corporation HQs. (Think about all the arguments about the meaning of “militia” in the 2nd Amendment)
Re: Clause 9 — “CHARTED” –> “CHARTERED” Also, the federal government does not Charter companies. This is a power the states typically exercise. Most companies tend to be chartered in Delaware because of the preponderance of Delaware case law. Also don’t see what this adds.
Typically, you want amendments to be simple for clarity and simple to allow some interpretation for the future.
I was actually trying to think about how to handle cases like a hivemind (a la bees) or virtual beings.
For example, what happens if space alien refugees touch down tomorrow and they want to live in the United States. However, they are a hivemind multiple individual living entities that form one consciousness. Can we write the 28th to adapt to that?
Also what happens if we have people who have their consciousness stored in computers? There are legitimate scientists who feel this will happen within 40 years. Are those people no longer citizens but rather slaves?