The MOVE TO AMEND Amendment!!

6 thoughts on “The MOVE TO AMEND Amendment!!”

1. Thanks for the post. I’m donating to Occupy whatever and have already dropped off goods but would like to continue my support seeing where they are becoming a force to be reckoned with and one that gives me hope.  What is the best way to send monetary donations to the group?

   Log in to Reply
2. Log in to Reply

3. Spent spme time with the Occu[y Boulder folks today. They’re on the right track, but need to coalesce. Too much infighting. Leadership?

   Log in to Reply

   1. “turf wars” to be a stumbling block to achieving such coalesence. The message I have brought to many communities in years past is to recognize that we don’t all have to be on the same bus.

      We just have to make sure all our buses are heading in the same direction.

      The person who can lead a community like this has to constantly bear in mind the saying (attributed to many but first spoken by an English poet, I discovered), “It is amazing what can be accomplished when it doesn’t matter who gets the credit.”

      That leader needs, above all else, to help the group find its’ message, articulate that message, and then make that message larger than themselves. The ability and willingness to take your message to those who can actually DO something about it is critical.

      It is not easy to speak the truth to power…if it were, more people would do it.

      Above ALL else…never, ever give up.  

      Log in to Reply

4. The provisions under section two make the regulation a constitutional requirement by using the word shall. These are items that should be up to legislators to determine.

   Change “shall” to “may” and I would be behind it 100%

   Log in to Reply

5. First and foremost, this amendment does not properly separate First Amendment speech from electioneering.  It tries, but it presumes that by specifying the purpose of spending that will properly limit Congress and the States to that area of spending – it won’t, because the courts give the legislatures broad leeway in interpreting these types of provisions.  In this respect it goes too far where the other amendments on the table do not go far enough.

   Second, I would alter the provision defining the (lack of) rights of artificial entities to:
   

   Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state derive their rights from the natural persons they are formed to represent, and such rights are limited in extent to representing those persons.

   Congress and the various States may create laws designating any additional privileges of artificial entities necessary for their proper operation, and these shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

   This is clearer, and explicitly allows e.g. the bundling of money by advocacy organizations for political purposes (while also implying that such bundling can be limited, regardless of the number of organizations, per person…).

   Third, the language about regulation of election financing should be tightened up to specify that said laws apply only to the appropriate jurisdiction (i.e. Congress has authority over Federal elections, and States over their own elections.)

   Fourth, local governments have no recognition under the Constitution – these are constituted under State law.  All references to local government should be removed from the amendment.

   Finally, I agree with Alexei – the “shall enact” provisions need to be change to “may”.  This is necessary for any provision regulating the States; the Federal provisions could remain as “shall”, but if they do, then the bill that sends the amendment to the States for ratification should also contain the initial legislation, provisional on passage of the amendment.

   I will look at the organization and its proposal; I hope that it’s still open for some modification to tighten it up to pass civil liberties and legal muster.

   Log in to Reply