Skip to main content

See also:

Analysis: Pelosi-endorsed amendment could ban free press, freedom of religion

Pelosi-endorsed amendment to Constitution would ban free speech, freedom of religion and due process, analysis says.
Pelosi-endorsed amendment to Constitution would ban free speech, freedom of religion and due process, analysis says.
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com

If Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other members of Congress - mostly Democrats - have their way, the First Amendment would not apply to corporations, or to any entity not a "natural person."

But an analysis of what is called the "People's Rights Amendment" by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh says the amendment would not only destroy the right to a free press guaranteed in the Constitution, it could "ban the speech and religious practice of most churches," since many are organized as corporations.

The People's Rights Amendment says:

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. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does 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.

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, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

On Friday, Volokh wrote:

So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”

It could also signal the end of websites like Examiner.com - the site hosting this article - as well as sites like Politico, or those run by news organizations like CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS.

The Daily Caller noted:

Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield agrees. In a January op-ed he wrote, “If The New York Times had no constitutional rights of its own, it could be prohibited from printing or distributing its newspapers. Its website could be shut off. Its printing presses could be seized. It could be prohibited from paying employees. The fact that individual reporters would still have rights to distribute homemade handbills or orate from a soapbox would mean little.”

In his op-ed, Greenfield argues that progressives should oppose this amendment, arguing that "groups are important to progressives."

According to the Daily Caller, Greenfield said that removing constitutional protections for non-human entities “would be dangerous, regardless of whether you are a progressive or a conservative. Everyone organizes themselves in groups.”

"The government could prohibit The Huffington Post -- not a natural person -- from printing columns critical of the president. The FBI could seize the servers owned by Google -- not a natural person -- without a warrant," he wrote. "Each of these would be a clear constitutional violation under current law, but would be permitted under the People's Rights Amendment."

Volokh went further, writing that under the proposed amendment, "Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches, which are generally organized as corporation[s]. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations."

He added:

State legislatures and local governments could do the same. All of them could seize corporate property without providing compensation, and without providing due process. All corporate entities would be stripped of all constitutional rights. Quite a proposal; I blogged more generally about this issue here, but it seems to me that simply listing the consequences of Congressman McGovern’s proposal largely suffices to explain its flaws.

Say goodbye to freedom of the press, goodbye to freedom of religion and goodbye to the concept of due process. We might as well say goodbye to the entire Bill of Rights. Is that what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want?

After the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision, liberals have sought to overturn it, arguing that corporations should not be treated as persons and they should not be allowed to contribute as they do to political campaigns.

This proposed amendment, while seeking to undo the Court's decision, would be a disaster for long-established freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Greenfield argues that a "proposed constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle," since the vast majority of proposed amendments fail.

There are, he writes, "a number of good ideas worth pursuing to limit the power of Big Money in our politics," most of which, he says, can be enacted either through legislation or regulation.

There is, of course, another option - obey the Constitution. Even though it is an old document that is confusing to some, it has served us quite well for over two centuries.

----------------------------------------------------------------

If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or click the Subscribe button to receive email updates when a new article is published.

Be sure to check out Joe's other columns:

Spokane Military History Examiner

National Computer User Examiner

Comments