OK. I changed my mind.

[cali]

I originally said:

Any politician who proposes a constitutional amendment is either cynically grandstanding or in lala land.

The third possibility that he/she is canny enough to know that doing so could be a vehicle to shine a light on the corporate takeover of our democratic processes, didn't initially occur to me. It's possible it could wake people up.

That would be worth it.

Sorry, folks. I'm so damned upset about all this I'm letting my cynicism get in the way of logic.

[joeybee12]

1. Why do we need a constitutional amendment when the decision goes against

what is already in the Constitution?

We need a grass-roots effort to embarrass the Kennedy 5 and keep pushing them to resign...what they did was a total violation of the Constitution and their jobs in defending it.

[hlthe2b]

7. It seems we need to designate what a human being is...

:mad: These erudite RW Supreme Court justices just can't figure it out.

[Statistical]

12. Delete

Delete

[Statistical]

13. Because obviously it is ambigous as best and/or the court is corrupt given the history of rulings.

This isn't just one ruling out of the blue but rather a pattern over last 50 years.

Even if it was reversed it likely would remain conflicted and could be reversed again (in favor of corps) at a future date.

Maybe not in our lifetime but 100 years from now, 200, 1000. Think corporations will ever give up?

Having an amendment which defines clearly and unambiguously that a person is a biological entity and specifically excludes "legal entities" such as corporations, partnerships, trusts, estates, LLC, etc is a more long term solution.

Without it eventually corporations will attempt to gain even more "rights".

If a corporation has right to free speech why not right to vote.
Why not allow corporations to vote as proxy for employees.
Of course corps will then make signing said proxy (where employee gives up vote for Representation) a condition for employment.

Think it can't happen? Maybe not today, maybe not in a decade but as corporations continue to amass more and more power and wealth that eventually rival even largest countries it will happen.

Want a job at "xyz" corp? No problem. Please sign here to officially transfering your vote in all elections to xyz corp for as long as you remain employed by xyz. Obviously we know what is good for you and the company.

[Enrique]

2. or they might be sincere n/t

[derby378]

3. Says who?

We got Amendment 27 passed at long last, didn't we? And yes, I know Congress has been seeking ways to get around it, but if we don't do something drastic, the corporate state will become a reality.

[cali]

5. ERA ring a bell?

it would take years, by which time....

I think it would serve one useful purpose though- it would shine a light on the corporate takeover.

[frazzled]

10. That amendment was introduced in 1789! It took more than 200 years to pass it.

Even if you count its reintroduction in 1982, it was still more than a decade in the making. And that was a pretty easy amendment. There aren't a lot of special interests aside from legislators themselves to oppose it.

I have no problem with the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment. It's just not a near-term solution for the ill-effects of this decision. It should be done, but it could take 50 years to get it passed. You need 2/3 of each house of Congress, plus 3/4 of all the states. That's a really tough row to hoe, especially given the corporate interests who will oppose it. In the meantime, there is legislation that can dampen the effects of this significantly.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Five Impeachments in the House/Senate?

[mmonk]

6. Such a politician is a sight better than the gang of 14.

[cali]

9. apple meet orange.

though as I said above, it could be a useful vehicle to shine s light on the corporate takeover of the democratic process.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Sufficient rage could conceivably build up in time to do this

But it won't happen soon. The ERA amendment failed to reach the standard for a constitutional amendment. So has an anti flag burning amendment and a balenced budget amendment. It is a very difficult thing to do and it will not happen as long as the currently elected Republicans in Congress and in State assemblies etc oppose it. And of course it will now be harder to elect people who want that amendment with corporations funding opponents to it.

[optimator]

11. the bourgeois mentality of the working class will prevent this

everyone in this country wants to be a capitalist i.e. slave owner, status, wealth etc.
So, there is no chance in hell of any constitutional amendment.
People like us who care about equality, democracy, etc are the FRINGE.

[NC_Nurse]

14. I completely understand. I've been trying to decide what country might be

worth looking into living in. I'm so discouraged.