[crumoursegemo]

Vermont Senate Resolves to Abolish “Corporate Personhood”


Montpelier - The Vermont State Senate voted today calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would make clear that corporations are not people and money is not speech and can be regulated in political campaigns. The vote was 26-3. State Senator Virginia Lyons (D) spearheaded the effort, working with Move to Amend in 2011 to introduce a resolution that came back this year.
Vermont is poised to become the first state to call for an amendment to abolish the doctrine known as “Corporate Personhood” which gives corporations constitutional rights meant to protect people.

Hawaii and New Mexico have passed resolutions against the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the Supreme Court, but the Vermont resolution goes beyond simply overturning that case and aims to remove corporations from the constitution altogether and make clear that money is not speech and that campaign spending and political contributions can be regulated by the government.

“Citizens across the country are putting Congress and the Supreme Court on notice that an amendment is coming. Legislatures can either join the Movement to Amend or get out of the way," stated Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap of Move to Amend. "Americans of all political persuasions are on board with an amendment to put We the People in charge of our government, not corporations. It is great to have the Vermont Senate step up to join the cause."

Partners in the Vermont effort include Vermonters Say Corporations Are Not People; Public Citizen; Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; Vermont Peace & Justice Center; VPIRG; Common Cause Vermont; Occupy Burlington; Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.; Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility; Rural Vermont; Vermont Workers Center; and Vermont Action for Peace.

For a list of cities that have passed resolutions or that have campaigns in progress see: http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map.

[kuzbaslachek]

So...
Are we going to war against Vermont next week?

[crumoursegemo]

So...
Are we going to war against Vermont next week?

Isn't Vermont also looking to get sued by Monsatan?


I do have issues with the wording. It seems to boil down to campaign finance on the surface.

[elektikaka]

If Palini lives there he sure is fucked.

[kuzbaslachek]

If Palini lives there he sure is fucked.

Nah... he'll just make them a counter offer!

[optormtix]

A body corporate undertakes to eliminate all corporations? Anybody note the irony?

[HRCPda7R]

I don't think they know the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

[optormtix]

States are presently administrative subdivisions of the federal government. They accommodate this status by using the phrase "this state" in their legislative code to refer to the federal territorial overlay. They are incapable of acting independently of the federal government.

This is the action the northern states chose when they opted to follow Lincoln into an (un)civil/INTERNATIONAL war.

[WGRocky]

The whole issue of personhood is insane. Corporations are 'mental constructs', often called 'legal fictions'. They do not have 'inalienable rights' because they do not really exist anywhere but in peoples' minds. Government is exactly the same thing--a 'mental construct'--a legal fiction that exists only in peoples' minds. So is citizenship. It's all part of a big hoax--an ongoing swindle to make us consent to being swindled. Corporations make our laws. They, among others own our politicians. That's what 'lobbyists' are. Vermont's legislature is an anomaly--perhaps not completely owned by the usual suspects. We'll see if any other states make similar resolutions.

Since we are all 'personal' corporations per our 'straw men' in all caps, will that diminish the personhood of the natural humans that we all are, so we are all on a level playing field with the corporations? We, the people, should have the power of life and death over corporations, but unfortunately they have purchased our government so it is the exact reverse. They have the power of life and death over us. Remember, Janet Napolitano just bought nearly half a billion rounds of .40 shredder ammunition. Which communist bigwig said 'Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.'? That ammunition will be used to protect those wonderful people, 'the corporations' from the 'natural people'. They are all mental constructs, but will cost people their lives. That's insane from my POV.

Hatha

[kuzbaslachek]

Which communist bigwig said 'Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.'?

Mao Zedong / Mao Tse-tung: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Same asshole who said: "To read too many books is harmful."

[UtidaBrar]

A body corporate undertakes to eliminate all corporations? Anybody note the irony?

Yes of course, but that's to be expected since we live in the Irony Age. Irony is what we make our spear points from.

[optormtix]

The whole issue of personhood is insane.
Hatha

Governments assign rights to persons. A person is 1) a word, 2) an action or 3) representation. To exercise a right you must go through the container called a "person". To perform a duty you do so through a similar container. Legislators are representatives. They represent their "citizens". You cannot be a citizen unless you do so through the container called a "person".

The whole situation would make one hell of a directed line graph showing rights and duties.

[WGRocky]

Why do we need 'containers' to exercise our rights? Or to perform 'duties'? We don't need no steenking containers.


Hatha

[QzVyZbTg]

All these specialized words are bullshit nonsense to the regular lay person or anyone with half a smidge of common sense. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't grant a corp the status of a person/human. I'm sure someone will define exactly what the fuck that means re person/human but that's half the problem...all the friggin verbage/definitions. Lets put a legal definition on a popcorn fart!

All of these crafted definitions are meant to drive the common man/woman out of the process of just approaching things in a common sensed fashion. Muddy the waters with convoluted crap, overwhelm their senses and they'll back off.

From the legislators and the lobbyists to people like Palini, it's all just more verbal garbage that's meant to obscure the reality that the remedy is simple but the cure is gonna be painful.

[optormtix]

to people like Palini

palani is not a people. palani is a USERNAME.

Libertytree is not a TREE. Libertytree is a USERNAME. Sometimes he acts as a TREE. TREEs are immobile too.

[optormtix]

Why do we need 'containers' to exercise our rights? Or to perform 'duties'? We don't need no steenking containers.


Hatha

If God can be personated then so can a TREE. The best source I have found on the subject of PERSONHOOD is Hobbes Leviathan. That is not to say it is the ultimate source but rather that it is the only historical source I have found that describes the mechanism of creating a PERSON. If anyone knows of another source feel free to post it.

For one who is truly self-directed the use of any word as a symbol is not a problem. You assign the meaning you would like to that word, let the world know how you plan on interpreting it and invite feedback from the world. Then you might just proceed with your future actions as if they do not create a PERSON.

[UtidaBrar]

Legalese is the ancient art/artifice of sophistry.

sophistry (ˈsɒfɪstrɪ) — n , pl -ries 1. a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading b. the art of using such arguments 2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning 3. an instance of this; sophism

[WGRocky]

How far can the law deviate from a commonly perceived reality? A Corporation is not a person just because some judge, or group of judges says it is. Nor is a human being a corporation because all the judges deem him to be so by spelling his name in ALL CAPS. God did not create corporations. Governments created corporations. God created human beings, not 'persons'. God gave human beings inalienable rights. Governments have extended those inalienable rights to corporations? And denied them to human beings? Anyone who concurs with that reasoning is, in my humble opinion, insane.

But, I do understand that insanity too is a legal term--legalese for somebody we don't agree with.

Hatha

[bonyclayd]

"God gave human beings inalienable rights. Governments have extended those inalienable rights to corporations? And denied them to human beings?"

You are either God's property or {pretending to be} theirs. TPTB go along with this pretense. And God punishes us all for our pretensions.

[WGRocky]

"God gave human beings inalienable rights. Governments have extended those inalienable rights to corporations? And denied them to human beings?"

You are either God's property or {pretending to be} theirs. TPTB go along with this pretense. And God punishes us all for our pretensions.

I have a slight error here. Governments haven't denied inalienable rights to human beings. They have just made it so human beings have to assert those rights to have them; most of us, having an ovine nature, choose not to assert those rights believing that our 'authorities' respect those rights. They use our ovine nature and our innocence to heap injustices upon us. Corporations are canine (predatory) in nature, and assert their 'rights' which encroach on the inalienable rights of the natural people.

When I think of the law, my orientation turns from the dog-eat-dog view of the world to the wolf-eat-sheep view of the world. The legal system is the establishment and the preservation of the status quo. They have to be shaken up from time to time by a vigorous revolution in peoples thinking.

Hatha