Arizona Eagletarian

Arizona Eagletarian

Saturday, November 26, 2011

End corporate personhood



The 26th amendment to the US Constitution, giving 18-year old citizens the right to vote was made law in a matter of a few short months in response to national outcry over sending young people to war (Vietnam) without them having a say in their government.

The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to those over twenty-one.
The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which itself is enforcement legislation based on prior suffrage amendments) that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. Oregon objected to the 18-year-old limit, as well as other provisions of the 1970 Act (it also objected to a prohibition on literacy tests for the franchise). In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state and local elections. The case was decided on December 1, 1970. Within months, on March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified. (emphasis mine)


Make no mistake, the influence (interference) of UNfair Trust in Arizona's independent redistricting process  is due to the hubris of several Arizona GOP elected officials exploiting Big Money interests.

A new, 28th amendment to the US Constitution -- to end corporate personhood and thereby restore the rights of We the People -- can be approved and ratified, in spite of the fact that Congress is largely dominated by the voice of corporations, rather than that of the People, in our era.

Please join me in signing the petition at Move to Amend.

And my thanks to Thom Hartmann for making this video.



 

4 comments:

  1. The "Motion to Amend" is well-intentioned, but the devil is always in the details. What´s with that part about protecting "local economies and democracies" against illegitimate "pre-emption" by national government? That kind of argument has been used in an attempt to defend Jim Crow laws from federal interference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a fair point, EB.

    From the Move to Amend website:

    http://movetoamend.org/frequently-asked-questions-0

    A number of different versions of democracy amendments dealing with corporate personhood, voting rights, and local democracy are currently under discussion. We deliberately have not chosen specific language at this time because we believe that the drafting process must involve many diverse individuals and organizations. Yes, lawyers and law professors are among our steering committee and our wider circle of counselors; however, their opinions are not the only ones that we will take into account in offering model language for the democracy amendments.

    -----

    Thus, I do not think they are locked into any specific language while dogmatically refusing to modify the language.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the response. I am all in favor of the issue being debated and explored in more depth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The language of the proposed amendment can be found here: http://movetoamend.org/amendment

    I don't see any preemption language in it.

    ReplyDelete