Congress to America: Shut Your Yap

By 13 Comments 1,098 views

It seems unbelievable today that the state of the famous Boston Tea Party would today be the one leading the charge towards returning us to a “form of Government [that] becomes destructive” that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. But, representatives from Massachusetts seem to constantly be working to destroy our freedoms, our Constitution, and our God-given rights.

Recently, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) introduced Joint House Resolution 88 proposing an amendment to the constitution known as the “People’s Rights Amendment.” Sounds almost redundant, doesn’t it? I mean, the Bill of Right’s IS the “People’s Rights.”

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. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do 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.

The intent of this amendment is to exclude corporations from the rights of free speech. Liberals aren’t happy with the Citizens United decision, the third such decision that recognized the rights of like-minded people to pool their resources to voice their opinions in a collective fashion. Liberals loathe corporations and will stop at nothing to end them, whether it be taxing them into oblivion or using their bully pulpit to pass laws like this one.

When I got back from Afghanistan, we bought a new van that came with a free year of Sirius/XM. Every now and then I find myself listening to Sirius 127 “Left.” Yesterday, during the Thom Hartmann show, they were discussing whether or not a corporation was a person. It was a ludicrous discussion and Hartmann joined the devolved conversation and actually encouraged the ignorance.

He made the absurd argument about corporations getting married (when did progressives and liberals respect marriage anyway?) or buying alcohol. The problem with this is that a corporation isn’t a PERSON, it’s PEOPLE. Chief Justice John Roberts (before he completely lost his walnut in the ObamaDontCare decision) noted in the Citizens United decision that the first amendment “protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.”

If you’re still on the fence about what this amendment means, I haven’t quoted the entire text yet. Consider 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, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

Liberals are a funny species to watch. Their use of speech and twisting of words is more conducive to a comedy act. Here’s the thing: NO ONE thinks that a corporation is a PHYSICAL human being on either side of the aisle. This third section seems to contradict the others.

The argument is whether corporations or groups, as a COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONS, are allowed to pool their resources to further a cause, agenda, or candidate. The Supreme Court ruled – rightly so – that they do. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” It does NOT say “the right of a PERSON to peaceably assemble.”

Today, this collection of people comes in many different forms: as non-profits, corporations, groups, clubs, etc. If the individual does not want to be a part of this collective, he has the right to disassociate himself with it.

Here’s the thing, those that support this legislation are also shooting themselves in the foot. This legislation not only affects corporations like the NRA and Fox News that liberals love to hate, but also MSNBC, the New York Times, and other liberal propaganda machines. These corporations will no longer be able to endorse candidates.

As of this writing, this bill already has 28 co-sponsors, one of which is a “Republican” (I will list those at the end of this post) and five states have passed resolutions calling for this amendment: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Vermont.

Here’s the good news though: as long as there is a conservative majority in at least one of the houses of Congress, this bill stands ZERO chance of passing. But, it’s important that you know these types of attempts are at least being made. If these same individuals are capable of passing a bill into law that merely “clarif[ies] the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations” in order to explain the meaning of the first amendment, the next logical step in this progress is to clarify “the authority of Congress and the States to regulation gun ownership.”

Here is list of those that have co-sponsored this bill so far. It isn’t going away, even though it has died in committee. As of just three months ago, legislators were still signing on to co-sponsor.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17]
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Janice Hahn [D, CA-36]
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D, DC-0]
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0]

Disclaimer: The views and opinions stated in this post are strictly those of the author and do not represent the views of any branch of government or military entity. Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 specifically gives me permission to “express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.” It is under this authority and a respect for the United States Constitution which I have sworn an oath to “support and defend” solely that I share this post. Any attempts to associate the opinions in this post with those of the United States Government are done so either in ignorance or with consciously hostile intent.

13 Responses to “Congress to America: Shut Your Yap”

  1. 1


    The real goal of this proposed Amendment is to advance the idea, and write it into law, that government issues the rights to the people. You have rightly pointed out that passage of this would enable those willing and wanting to rewrite the Second Amendment the ability to do so, by simply “clarifying” what the Constitution says.

    In this vein, government can not only “clarify” any number of Amendments the liberal/progressives find distasteful, but also, certain other phrases, passages, and clauses contained within it, such as the Commerce clause, or the General Welfare “clause”.

    In effect, they are taking away the authority and responsibility of the USSC to decide exactly what the Constitution states, rendering them nothing more than an umpire in an “everybody bats, everybody makes a run, no one wins” baseball game so favored by the left. In other words, useless.

    The Citizens United decision did nothing more than ensure a level playing field, politically, by neutering the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law’s most notorious aspect. That is, allowing unions, another collective of “like-minded people”, to have free reign during the time period when all other political speech, particularly by corporations, was illegal.

    Notice the absence of any other collective of people other than corporate related entities. If ever enacted, on top of the points CJ and myself have made regarding further lawmaking, this Amendment would tilt the playing field heavily in favor of liberal/progressives as far as political speech is concerned.

    This is nothing but a big lie by the liberal/progressive politicians to regain a portion of power and control that they lost, and an attempt to gain more power and control than they had before.

    The natural tendency of government, ANY government, is to accumulate more power over it’s citizenry. This Amendment is the next step in the fight to “hold the line”, so to speak.

  2. 2

    Nan G

    I must have missed the part about UNIONS not being people.
    If corporations are not people with rights, why should unions get them?

  3. 3


    CJ, Welcome back to the world. And, thanks for this heads-up. The list above, contains all of the usual suspects. A plethora of pin-heads. To get at the corporations they would need to gag, other corporations like: CPB, AFSCME, NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AARP, People for the American way, Moveon, ACORN (Or, whatever their name is today), would somehow need to be exempted. All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

  4. 7

    Marion Valentine

    I have not posted on here in a while. But I hope all of you will take a look at the following link and pass it along if you would. It is a video of an interview with my daughter Eva about her fight with Lupus and renal kidney failure.
    We are trying to get her on the juvenile kidney transplant list before she turns 21 years old.

  5. 9


    Marion Valentine
    nice to have you visit, thank you for the link,
    I did visit your site before at times,
    I was seeking infos and good advices, and I got them and I trust you for it,
    we will pay attention to DEAR EVA, TODAY,

  6. 10

    Marion Valentine

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks much folks, We have been muddling through Eva’s illness, but the medical expenses has taken everything I can rake and scrape, so the parents of Eva’s dear friend Miranda started the benefit drive for her.

  7. 12

    Marion Valentine

    Thanks..She is doing well on dialysis, she has always had a positive “never give up” attitude. She does get down sometimes because she has to be at home every night by 9 PM to do dialysis (takes about 9 hours) and it is extremely hard to load machine and bags of fluid to go anywhere overnight, so she is pretty well stuck at home.

  8. 13


    Marion Valentine
    thank you, yes she has a load to carry more than other, I hope she get the transplant soon, she is young that is a plus for her to recuperate after the transplant,
    take care,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *