To Restore Democracy: First Abolish Corporate Personhood

Posted on Sunday, February 18 at 10:21 by 4Canada
Because of the unique frailties and depths of passion unique to humans, just after the United States Constitution was ratified Thomas Jefferson and James Madison began a campaign to amend it with a 12-point explicit statement that would clearly and unambiguously place humans - who had created government - above their creation. This was the birth of what would become the Bill of Rights, and it originally had twelve - not ten - protections for citizens’ rights. On December 20th, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He said, bluntly, that it was deficient in several areas. “I will now tell you what I do not like,” he wrote. “First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations.” Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America, Jefferson believed. “Let me add,” he summarized, “that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” The following year, Jefferson wrote about his concerns to several people. In a letter to Mr. A. Donald, on February 7th, 1788, he defined the items that should be in a bill of rights: “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, which no honest government should decline.” Jefferson kept pushing for a law, written into the constitution as an amendment, which would guarantee liberties for citizens, prevent companies from growing so large they could dominate entire industries or have the power to influence the people’s government, and reduce the possibility of the nation being taken over by a military coup. On February 12th, 1788, he wrote to Mr. Dumas about his pleasure that the US Constitution was about to be ratified, but also expressed his concerns about what was missing from the Constitution. He was pushing hard for his own state to reject the Constitution if it didn’t protect people from the dangers he foresaw. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17103.htm [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 19, 2007]

Note: http://www.informationc...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:45 pm
    Excellent piece of work, but what I could never understand is how this artificilly and fraudulently imposed law became law not only in the USA, but also in Canada and all the countries of the world.

    Has there ever a similar law been passed in Canada ? When, where and who decided its legality in Canada?

    The only explanation I can find is the threat of these big "investors", that if other countries don't go along with the acceptance of their superior personhood, they won't bring their "investments" into the country.

    Which would be the best thing for everybody, because no country needs foreign investment, which is another fraud to begin with.

    Ed Deak.

  2. by avatar Milton
    Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:06 am
    Yes, abolish corporate personhood, lets go further, lets abolish limited liability, make stakeholders proportionately liable and see if that helps bring about some corporate ethics.

  3. Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:48 pm
    What that would bring about (in Canada anyway) would be pretty much every major enterprise above the level of a mom-and-pop business being owned and run by the government. This would be especially true with the restrictions (and in some cases outright banning) of foreign capital supported by many on this site.

    Limited liability is most protective of small investors who don't want to risk losing their houses over decisions that they had only a tiny shareholder's say in.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news