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.