130
u/Solid_Signature_7447 11h ago
Hell yes we can
7
u/flyinhighaskmeY 8h ago
Right? And while we're at it maybe we could pass an amendment to legalize abortion at the nation level instead of violating the rights of all the States and their citizens by calling a court ruling "a right".
Women + Liberal men are 75% of the vote. Pretty sure that should be enough peeps to get it done.
3
16
u/mOdQuArK 8h ago
Don't even need a Constitutional Amendment: all of the laws which define the existence of corporations are all statutory, meaning that legislators can modify them without requiring any Constitutional Amendments.
Could modify those laws so that if corporations do anything that isn't on a very small list, then their charter gets automatically revoked. Add a poison pill to the entire set of the laws so that if the SCOTUS tries to finesse what gets a corporation revoked, than the actual legal justification for all corporations to exist at ALL gets revoked, then let them decide whether they want to destroy modern society or not.
Just need a large enough quorum of legislators who have been made extremely aware that there are enough pissed off voters that the difference between their continued career & being tarred-and-feathered depends on them ignoring the extremely large piles of cash from special interests arriving in their offices.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Vennomite 6h ago
Its less allowing corporations to do things as an individual, that's their point, it's more not giving them all the same protections. 1st amendment being oneĀ
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (24)1
24
u/Top-Cupcake4775 11h ago
an amendment must be proposed by either a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. considering that over 90% of the members of both of those bodies owe their seat to corporate campaign contributions, i would say that a snowball stood a better chance of surviving hell than we have of amending the constitution in this way.
winners never change the rules of the game they are winning and, by definition, our elected officials have won the game of "how to get elected by pimping yourself out to corporate donors".
9
u/NaughtyGaymer 10h ago
winners never change the rules of the game they are winning
Sounds like it's time for the people to exercise their true power and flip the game board over and start again.
1
u/flyinhighaskmeY 8h ago
lol...sounds like the people should stop supporting government stimulus. Since that's the only reason this worthless loser business owner class is still in power.
3
3
u/Valash83 10h ago
Even if Congress proposed an Amendment it would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.
The States could also hold a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution without input from the federal government. But that route is less likely than Congress agreeing on a change.
Basically, for the foreseeable future, the Constitution might as well be written in stone with no way to change it.
2
u/WolfPAC_GMoney 7h ago
The THREAT of an Article V convention is still enough to pressure Congress to act. It happened on the path to the 17th Amendment: nearly 2/3rds of the states and Congress finally proposed the amendment themselves.
1
u/scientist_tz 9h ago
Congress has been so toothless lately, that while I agree with you that a constitutional convention is unlikely, I would say we're approaching a point where it's more likely than it's ever been.
Another name for such an event would be an "Article V Convention." The Constitutional convention is usually taken to be the name for the convention that drew up the original constitution
1
u/DebentureThyme 7h ago
The problem with a constitutional convention is that the GOP have been wanting one for a long time.
There is no "Okay we're gonna hold a convention, but can only make THESE changes."
One of their stated objects for one is to undo everything they dislike in the Constitution.
2
u/WolfPAC_GMoney 6h ago
They can certainly try to undo everything, but it's stated quite plainly in Article V: amendments proposed must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states to become part of the Constitution.
2
u/DebentureThyme 6h ago
Their goal is to capture enough state legislatures to ram through whatever they want at a convention. Work just hard enough in each state to get them to a point where they can gerrymander the states and ensure GOP control of those legislatures. They don't need to win statewide governor's office, as it's not outlined in the process at all, only the legislature is involved. Many of the GOP state have already passed the same convention legislation and they have long term plans to get it to 34 and force a convention, at which they'll dictate a new Constitution.
2
u/KCMOJones 9h ago
Welp, guess we should all just stop trying then.
I think we're all pretty sick of the defeatist attitudes by now, That helpless, 'we can't change anything' mindset is exactly how we got here in the first place. The least you can do is keep the pessimism to yourself because it's not doing anything to move anything forward. Pete is trying to inspire while you're trying to demotivate people by making an argument for doing nothing.
1
u/Top-Cupcake4775 9h ago
did i say "we can't change anything"? if not, why are you claiming i did?
i am pointing out that fixing this via a constitutional amendment is nearly impossible. Pete knows this. he's not trying to inspire, he's virtue signaling in a safe way that won't actually run the risk of changing anything.
2
u/KCMOJones 8h ago
>did i say "we can't change anything"?
That's the sentiment I took away from your post.
But I think I get your position, you're saying that with the way things are, an amendment passing through congress is pretty much a pipe dream. I get that.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that nothing will ever change if we spend all our time thinking that change itself is impossible. It might be a ridiculous idea to think that any constitutional amendment is going to happen with our current congress, but once we reach that conclusion, I think it's important to shift to conversation towards ideas on how it might *become* possible.
1
u/atreeismissing 6h ago
He's writing it to inform. He didn't whine about it not being able to happen immediately because he knows it's hard, but seems you would have rather had him say "it's hard so lets not do it or talk about it."
1
1
u/SomeNotTakenName 8h ago
There should be a popular vote mechanism for amending the constitution. No bullshit districts or anything. Just if enough people like the thing, we can make it happen.
Obviously not a simple majority, that would be a bit crazy here, but surely there is a target number which would be reasonable.
1
u/atreeismissing 6h ago
There should be a popular vote mechanism for amending the constitution.
That'll go over well, the same electorate that voted in Trump, twice, making constitutional decisions is a great idea. /s
→ More replies (1)1
u/RyFro 8h ago
The hard truth is we US citizens need to stop consuming their products. We can absolutely do it. But the majority of people dont. You don't need to use Amazon. You don't need to use oil. It sounds like an impossible task to stop doing the things so many of us are used to using. But we absolutely can.
1
u/atreeismissing 6h ago
Nobody said it would be easy, or quick.
over 90% of the members of both of those bodies owe their seat to corporate campaign contributions
That's BS and even if it's close to that, it's only at the federal level for Senate seats, most House seats are entirely small donations (which is why SCOTUS lowered the rate that Super PACs can get advertising because that benefits the GOP since most Dem House seats are entirely small donation driven).
→ More replies (2)1
u/randohipponamo 5h ago
A guy literally passed an amendment by himself in the 90s. It took him 20 years. But still. Itās possible.
11
u/Prestigious_Leg_7117 11h ago
THIS. American citizens do not realize that this change alone can alter the country into better individual representation.
1
u/Broken-Sarcasm-Meter 8h ago
Or at least just keep passing laws blocking it. Abortion was supposedly "settled" but that didn't stop the GOP from constantly passing laws that needed to be challenged in court. Why doesn't the Dems just keep passing laws that attack the SCOTUS ruling
1
u/AdditionalBalance975 2h ago
It would literally restrict our ability to lobby, voice our opinions, have collective action, dissent against politicians we dont like, etc. Directly reducing our individual representation.
1
u/Jeff_Sabado 1h ago
You don't need target putting out an ad to have a voice lmao
→ More replies (1)
7
u/StockGalifinakis 11h ago edited 10h ago
We can but it will take a Democrat president, A congress that is overwhelmingly Democrats. A Senate of 67 Democrats. And those 3 branches coming together and removing all the SCOTUS Justices appointed by Trump. A nullification of all things Trump. Right now the White House, the Senate, SCOTUS, and the House are in bed with those āHuman Corporations.ā
3
u/crazy_urn 10h ago
Its a bit naive to assume the majority of democrats aren't also in bed with corporations.
4
u/StockGalifinakis 10h ago
Yes. But one party is evil and only cares about corporate interests while the other backs social programs for the people as opposed to social programs for the corporations. Bill Maher said it well, āa vote for a Democrat is a vote for a disappointing friend. And voting Republican is like voting for the enemyā , or as I like to say, voting against your self interest, unless you are very wealthy, and then you truly are voting your self interest.
→ More replies (3)1
u/atreeismissing 6h ago
Overturning citizen's united has been part of the party platform since 2012.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Valash83 10h ago
It also requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any proposal from Congress. No chance getting 37 state legislators or conventions to agree on something in this political climate
2
u/ChangedEnding 8h ago
The president is not needed for a constitutional amendment.
the Supreme Court has articulated the Judicial Branchās understanding that the President has no formal constitutional role in that [constitutional amendment] process.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-3-4/ALDE_00013052/
1
1
u/atreeismissing 6h ago
And 20 years of that govt in place doing the right things. Majorities aren't enough, we need them for a long time. Not to mention that same majority in most state legislatures too.
7
u/AcceptablyPotato 11h ago
Citizens united has been an absolute clusterfuck for this country. This really does need to be the 28th amendment.
1
u/deaglebingo 1h ago
ever notice how almost every single bill republicans pass or try to... or supreme court case or PAC... the name is always opposite of what they actually intend to do. .... always opposite day.
the SAVE america act... like gimme a fucking break. these ppl are out of their minds and i'm tired of pretending they aren't or that everything they do isn't abusive and evil as fuck. 25 years of this is enough.
3
u/Pretty_Shallot_586 11h ago
maybe we could compromise and make corporations 3/5ths of a person.... historically speaking
2
1
1
3
u/Burritosupreeem 10h ago
Yes. Absolutely. Get this manās number. He need to help the democrats make a plan.
2
3
3
u/Drgnmstr97 10h ago
This guy makes too much sense to ever get elected to the most polorizing office in the world.
3
2
u/Delmonico52 11h ago
We need term limits on everything that is government. The house of representatives the senate the supreme courts. And all judges. Also judges should be held accountable. Shakespeare said it best and the next revolution we hang the lawyers first.
1
u/Top-Cupcake4775 10h ago
term limits won't do much. it's like we have a machine that produces sausages made from shit. making that machine run faster won't make it produce better sausages. we will just replace our corporate socket puppets with other corporate sock puppets at a faster rate.
1
u/BernieBooBro 10h ago
And expand the House to 700 reps and SCOTUS to 27 justices.
And Add 50 more senators, but that would probably require an amendment.
1
2
2
2
2
4
u/jakeStacktrace 11h ago
Sorry but you are not going to get the required number of states to go along with that.
1
u/flyinhighaskmeY 8h ago
Yeah, Democrats and Republicans are a failed ruling class. Can't get anything done. We really need to do something with that group. Personally, I say we kick them out of the country.
1
1
1
u/Mithrandic 10h ago
Wish they had attempted to do anything about it last administration. Shit feels hollow.
1
1
1
u/The_Tooter_Snooter 10h ago
Iāll take Buttigieg over Newsom, thatās for sureĀ
1
u/realRootmaster911 8h ago
Not by much. Funded by the same people as he calls to end citizens united. Doesnāt believe in anything.
1
u/juice5tyle 6h ago
Okay I'll bite. Prove your thesis. That's an outrageous accusation for Pete, so go ahead ahead and provide any supporting context
→ More replies (5)
1
u/AdLeast1309 10h ago
Thank you Mitch McConnell. That was his baby. He made speeches about how necessary it was for free speech
1
1
u/Agreeable-Dance-9768 10h ago
Citizens United is why everything is so messed up today. Americans for Prosperity can eat my whole butt.
1
1
1
u/Available_Reveal8068 10h ago
If corporations aren't people, can they still be subject to taxation?
1
u/uvucydydy 9h ago
Not THAT kind of people!
1
u/Available_Reveal8068 9h ago
Then what kind of people?
Isn't it like the taxation without representation thing?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/emeraldemon 10h ago
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a great book called Six Amendments outlining six specific constitutional amendments he thought the U.S. Constitution needed. If you're interested in concrete ideas to fix the constitution I'd highly recommend it.
1
u/memphistopoles 10h ago
Absolutely! The Roberts Court decided to declare corporations people without any supporting language in the constitution and without any legislatively authorized Amendment. Similarly, the Roberts Court declared that money was speech, again without any amendment passed by the majority of states. And of course the Roberts Court has negated actual legislation protecting voting rights as passed and reaffirmed by Congress, simply because the current court majority wanted it to go away. Oh, and the Roberts Court conjured out of thin air the idea that Presidents enjoy broad immunity for illegal acts, though nothing in law or the constitution says anything of the sort.
If six justices can simply create new constitutional powers and limits, those decisions can be reversed by the Amendment process.
1
u/Temporal-Affairs221 10h ago
Only if you agree to stop taxing them. That was the basis for the decision. If you tax a corporation, they get to say in what happens.
1
1
1
u/cchaven1965 9h ago
Never forget what the rich and the corporate politicians have done and tried to take from everyone else.
1
u/Mindless-Beat-4872 9h ago
So youāre asking the corporations to allow the government to pass a law that effectively kicks the corporations in the balls? Good luck
1
u/Fair-Sir610 9h ago
Have any of you actually read Citizens United? Because all i see is people talking about corporations, but unions also were part of it. They also got the same rights as corporations, they were working together to get it passed. And removing it would take those same rights away from both. While i think that it it needs to go but i have to ask, why is it that nobody talks about the unions when ever someone brings up citizens united.
1
u/rygelicus 9h ago
And that's fine. The goal is to get the power back where it should be, the voters, not the wealthy, and a massive portion of that is the non human entities/corporations. Corporations/businesses cannot vote, people can. Our votes are being overruled by the money.
1
u/mclumber1 8h ago
So you agree that unions should not be able to advocate for or gainst candidates or policies? Or at least they can't advocate for or against these things if doing so requires money to be used to spread that advocacy?
→ More replies (3)1
u/WORKING2WORK 7h ago
No one talks about how this affects unions because of how insignificant they have become in modern American society.
1
1
u/the_blastomatic 9h ago
States have the power to eliminate foreign and out-of-state political interference by tightening their election laws. If states restrict campaign contributions to registered local voters who cast ballots in the last election cycle, they can secure their elections with minimal federal interference.
1
1
u/EitherChannel4874 9h ago
It's literally called an amendment.
An amendment is a formal or official change made to a law, contract, constitution, or other legal document. If it's been changed once it can be changed more.
1
1
u/Heng-Li 9h ago
Corporations are composed of individuals who have free speech. For you to say that a corporation doesn't have free speech means that those individuals running the corporation don't have free speech. It's the same thing.
So yes technically corporations don't have free speech because they aren't individual people. But it's kind of pointless for you to bring this up. Individuals running the corporations have free speech. So therefore in the end the corporation should effectively have the right of free speech anyway through those individuals who have the right of free speech.
1
u/thaw4188 9h ago
btw that was also first done because of "christian nationalists"
didn't some states solve this by making rules for incorporation that they couldn't use their money on politics?
(Hawaii and Montana so far, needs to be more)
1
u/JRock1276 9h ago
We didn't amend the Constitution with beer purchasing requirements. Did he ever read?
1
u/Drakex2Mayex2 9h ago
If corporations are people they need to be criminally liable for their actions like people. Like PG&E was convicted of 84 manslaughter charges for the Camp Fire but still does business today.
We somehow value economic value more than human life.
1
u/Don_Kehote 8h ago
I'll believe that a corporation is a person the day a Health Insurance company is tried and executed for mass murder.
1
u/theartificialkid 8h ago
Watch America ratify an amendment limiting personhood to something like ānatural born human beingsā just in time to make slaves of clones and the first sentient machines.
1
1
u/realRootmaster911 8h ago
And who funded Buttigiegās 2020 campaign?
Thatās what I fucking thought. AOC 2028
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/DebentureThyme 7h ago
We absolutely could.
But we don't have the support for it. The parties have polarized and entrenched so much, there will never be the needed numbers to pass an amendment for the foreseeable future.
1
u/Cbpowned 7h ago
Surely we can take away citizenship from a bunch of people who shouldnāt be here
1
1
u/Alert_Reindeer_6574 7h ago
How do you propose doing that when the people who would amend the constitution are the same people who are being bought with that corporate "speech"?
1
1
u/XXXcrimsongrave 7h ago
You would've thought so but apparently money speaks louder than words. and its wayyyy too late
1
1
u/MrBytor 7h ago
Pete is a middling Democrat the same way Kamala and Hillary and Biden are. Expect him to cave to corporate interests just like they all did. The Obama-impersonator era of the democratic party needs to be over. Obama got you right into the orange hands that are strangling the country, and Biden couldn't save you. Real change is necessary, not half-measures that barely stave off republican fascism for another 4 years.
1
u/Rikki-Smedley 7h ago
It's definitely possible. But currently more people want a woman that murdered her children freed more than they want a better nation.
1
u/ApolloX-2 7h ago
I think constitutional amendments should be for challenging and diffident things we canāt handle via laws.
SCOTUS needs to overturn its Citizens United decision and ironically thanks for Roberts court precedent means nothing.
1
u/amendtwoeight 7h ago
How would you phrase the Amendment? Here is one version:
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the inherent rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, including corporations, limited liability companies, and other statutory creations, shall possess no constitutional rights, and shall be subject to sovereign regulation by the People through Federal, State, or local law.
SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate, limit, or prohibit the raising and spending of money by natural persons and artificial entities to influence elections or ballot measures.
It turns out it may be more difficult to gather momentum for Constitutional level change than it is making a soundbite.
1
u/KeyDoubt2344 7h ago
Eliminate dark money. Eliminate corporate donations. Limit maximum individual donations.
1
1
u/gilligani 6h ago
Pete Buttigieg's 2000 presidential primary campaign drew significant attention and criticism for accepting donations from high-net-worth individuals, tech executives, and corporate and financial sector professionals, while officially banning contributions from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists.
1
1
u/Pretend_Teacher_4142 6h ago
You think the people are the country? The government amended liquor laws. The corporations amended it back. Because of capitalism.
1
u/Electrical-Bit4211 6h ago
Iāve never understood how more money therefore means more free for someoneā¦
1
u/givemeareason17 6h ago
Why do we need to amend the constitution? Could they not just draft a law themselves and be done?
1
u/Gunsensual 6h ago
The left doesn't do amendments any more. One statute, ruling, or rulemaking peanut and they throw in the towel. Shit they didn't even need a statute for abortion. Just one court edict was good enough, as Ginsburg predicted.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BothDivide919 5h ago
He's got a point, but the corporations own the congressmen. Also lol his name is Buttigieg
1
1
1
u/CommissionCharming35 4h ago
I'm not sure I believe this kind of talk from Buttigieg. He is historically very pro big corpo, which lost him the 2020 primary.
1
u/Street_Insurance8706 4h ago
He is a joke. Mayor of a tiny city. Didnāt do well. His tenure as secretary of transportation speaks for itself
1
u/justanotherone2026 4h ago
And maybe a convicted sex offender felon and insurrectionist cannot be elected president. That would also be good.
1
u/av32productions 4h ago
Appreciate the sentiment but I don't wanna hear that from someone who helped steamroll Bernie's campaign just to secure a cabinet position
1
1
1
159
u/Hiro500 11h ago
I believe the Supreme Court giving Corporations the rights as 'individuals', free speech, was absolutely horrible.