Our greatest challenge is to Abolish Corporate Personhood

[b29349]

i wish you the best for this. start w/ Lincoln in 1864. without corps to expand the railroads I would be living in the CSA not USA.

[G1SpaceDoll]

Hey did you guys realize that the government is a corporation in reality. Getting rid of Corporations, Good luck with that one.

[meadbert]

Corporations are what allow common citizens to compete with Billionaires. If associations of citizens are banned from coming together to campaign then this leaves them at a severe disadvantage to billionaires that control entire companies.

[devourerofbabies]

If corporations are persons, then they shouldn't be able to buy each other or own subsidiaries. Because that would be slavery.

[max24ist]

Not allowed to vote. But theypay taxes, doesent that entitle them to some Human rights? nd i belive they can be punished unlike/like Humans

[MikePryslak]

I believe corporations should have the minimum set of rights necessary to function (own property, utilize the legal system, etc.). I don't think corporations should have, for example, a right against self-incrimination. I do not believe corporations should be allowed to participate in the process of law making. (I do believe individual owners of corporations should be allowed to participate in the process of law making - but only as individuals.) But my opinions are contrary to current law.

[squellock]

Excellent post. I found it after posting mine on the same subject. please see Guard labor on squellock at Utube. JD

[AmericasMaji]

Corporations, while not evil, are the Feudal Lords and Holdings of this era. They are indeed governments.

[atripa645]

Corporations are psycopathic intities. See the movie "The Corporation"

[ThePintsizeslasher]

No, they are symptoms of governments. They are enlarged, fed, sustained, subsidized and protected by states, firms as large or as abusive as modern corporations could not survive in a free society

/watch?v=gN8iiDGdD4M

[bigollameo]

I don't think so.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

OK...

Care to add anything, you know like, why you think that? What don't you agree with?

[speciesamused]

I am a Floridian and it so refreshing to see

you are like myself and think about what is going on in this country with the corporations running the show. I am also very concerned about the religious right in this state. 5 stars and subed.

Stay up. One love.

[WorshipInTruth]

Leave it to the corporations to take advantage of the rights of the individual person as laid out in the constitution. But the question remains, if a corporation is not a "person" then what is it?

[LastTrueLiberal]

"It was created by a few judges after the Civil War..." Actually, to discover the origins of corporate personhood you're going to have to go back to the Roman Empire.

[dudeedud7]

Thank YOU for making this video! Please continue your hard work.

[Deathicorn]

Ever wonder why it is when you get a bill, court order, etc. Your name is in all caps. Ask the english language, you just might finally realize what you are.

[Truthbandit]

we do not have a democracy, it is a republic. Learn the difference.

[bintalshamsa]

A republics is a type of democracy. While you're suggesting that someone should "learn the difference", perhaps you should consider LEARNING THE DEFINITIONS. A republic is a representative democracy.

[ITILII]

Incorrect. Re read the Federalist Papers and learn why the founders created this nation to be a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY

[silverhawks]

A republic is a society governed by laws. A democracy is a society governed by the majority. In a republic, your rights are as equally protected by the law as every other person. In a democracy, your rights can be altered or stripped from you by 51% of the people if they can be persuaded it is legal to do so, leaving a minority of 49%. There was a VERY GOOD REASON why the Founders created a Republic, as opposed to a democracy.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

That's why Prop 8 in California is unconstitutional.

[imunplugged]

Please check out deprogram(dot)us for deprogramming.

Then go to pacinlaw(dot)org and check out The Red Amendment, by L.B. Bork.

Find answers on how to abolish your U.S. citizenship and return to your constitutionally correct status.

[GDAEman]

Great Mike. I'm working on a series that's intended to bring in a little humor along with the POCLAD message. Hope to have my first piece soon after the holidaze.

[jcoffey9]

Thanks for the great presentation and it even included captioning to summarize your speech. We hearing-impaireds (or deaf) can at least understand the gist and can fully agree with your opinion.

I wish I voted but I was late before the votes closed on Nov. 14th and I would have voted in favor.

[OhHen]

all the war stuff is just the oligarchs distraction for us from corporate rule.

it's all connected, as all of humanity is, and all of life is too.

all though the FEMA concentration camps are a problem too. greg palast has reported on them. and blackwater has shown up in NO already too.

[OhHen]

this is interesting.

since no state constitution can disclude rights written in the us federal constitution.

if i am reading the above correctly

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Jones v. Temmer is proof as recognized by the Supreme Court that there are two distinct kinds of American citizenship derived from one Constitution. One that is a "sovereign" State Citizenship with access to the entire Bill of Rights. And another that is a "subject" of the District of Columbia in a condition of "voluntary servitude" to their exclusive jurisdiction without access to the non-enumerated rights retained for free people by the 9th & 10th Amendments.

[OhHen]

"free people" isn't a legal term.

people are just free. laws are supposed to be what the gov't is allowed to do and what lines it is not supposed to cross. our inalienable rights are NOT privileges of citizenship or any other such non-sense. all humans have inalienable rights, period. that comes before any constitution, which in a way is a written reminder of powers people allow gov't to have, if we allow gov't to exist at all

[OhHen]

we the sovereign people also charter corporations via our state gov'ts. so corporations are almost a sort of quasi-gov't entity. actually they are a way to do things with gov't santioned privilege - that can be revoked and/or abolished all together. because we the people are sovereign over our legal creations.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"free Person" is a legal term. Look it up at A.1, S.2, C.3. But why I am bothering to explain American jurisprudence to an East Timorian ? It would be best if did your political activism in your own country. And let Americans who have eyes to see and minds to comprehend read Jones v. Temmer for what it says, and not superimpose your idealistic philosophy over it. Thank you very much.

[OhHen]

haha.

i'm not really Timorese.

but people(real human persons) still have inalienable rights despite rhetoric that they are somehow 'granted' by the us system of gov't or any gov't. it is corporations which have privileges granted to them and they are sometimes referred to as 'rights'

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Ha ha ! Very funny ! But I agree. Our rights do not come from government. But they certainly are safeguarded by it. And because the Constitution is the guarantor of our rights, and the Supreme Court their custodians so to speak, we must look to American jurisprudence as to how, when, where, and in what way they will be recognized, and not merely to our own ideology. That's why Jones v. Temmer is so important, because it distinguishes between sovereignty and servitude.

[OhHen]

for sure.

no one is in servitude.

(except by punishment of law. slavery

was never outlawed. read that amendment)

the people are sovereign.

and most definitely over our creations

governments and corporations

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

I'm sorry, but Jones v Temmer clearly says that federal citizens do not have access to the entire Bill of Rights. That's because they are in a condition of voluntary servitude which is not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Please search "Voluntary Servitude by Deception" right here on YouTube and watch my video and read synopsis if you want to learn the real truth.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

But somehow, just like Mike Pryslak, I don't think you want to accept the heinous truth behind the 14th Amendment. But rather deny it, or argue against it. Whereas it's not the great equalizer that we have been mislead to believe it is supposed to be. In fact, quite the opposite. It is the great reducer of us all to slaves. And that's the truth whether you want to accept it or not.

[OhHen]

if one were to produce writings from before this time that showed people held themselves to be citizens of their own state first and considered them countries...then those statements might make more sense. otherwise, you know, "states rights" has since the civil rights era been used as code for allowing racism.

[OhHen]

allowing women and former slaves to vote, and gain rights over the past century has often times been interpreted by some white males as themselves losing power.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"It has been said by eminent judges that no man was a Citizen of the United States except as he was a Citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born or resided always in the District of Columbia, or its territories, were not Citizens". Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 407 (1872)

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States (as defined by the 14th Amendment) and a Citizenship of a State (as defined by A.1, S.2, in conjunction with A.4, S.2) which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual". Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 408 (1872)

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Therefore, "of the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States, and of a Citizen of a State, it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution (i.e. the 14th Article) and the latter, are not intended to have any additional protection by this amendment". Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 408 (1872)

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"The latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested: for they are not embraced by this amendment". Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 408 (1872)

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"That a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a Citizen of the United States, or of a State, by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution". Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 407 (1872)

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

"That the 14th Amendment's main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit no doubt" Slaughter House Cases: S.C. 16 Wall. 36-130, page 408 (1872) Therefore, in other words, white man go home ! No protection under the Fourteenth !

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Therefore in summation, while in abominable yet critically honest assessment, whereby upon discernment of proper upper and lowercase characterization which distinguishes fictional creations of government apart from creatures by nature and of nature's God, one can clearly see that the black man has never had, even unto this very day, the same sovereignty bestowed upon him by government that he most certainly does and has always had bestowed upon him by nature and nature's God.

[OhHen]

ha

haha.

whatever man.

it doesn't deny whites rights.

if anything it reaffirms them.

since no person can be denied because of things listed. color or skin for example.

that includes "white"

[OhHen]

haha.

oops. wrong amendment.

still, it doesn't deny "whites" anything.

except for saying former tyrants who held people in bondage could not get compensation for money they gave to take over control of another person's bondage.

[OhHen]

and that would have been a good thing.

unfortunately reconstruction came screeching to a halt in the next prez or two.

those large plantations should have just been turned into democratically run cooperatives with the former masters being able to work along side their former workers. certainly if there is anything that should be dismantled is the unjustness of oligarchy

[OhHen]

that still doesn't mean any person can be denied inalienable human rights which are not granted by an gov't or piece of paper, but, are inalienable

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Excuse me OhHen, but you just can't accept the letter of the law for what it says ! Can you ? I'm sorry, but you just can't superimpose your idealistic principles over legal jurisprudence, even if they're right. Wherefore, while it is true America was founded upon such principles, it is served and maintained by the letter of the law for what it says, and not what you think it says, or want it to say.

[OhHen]

there is nothing there that negates or attempts to say "whites" have rights no more.

so i really do not know what you are talking about.

even 'establishing citizenship' of people with more melanin in their skin and another culture does not take away anyone else's rights. unless one is trying to delusionally argue that owning another person is someone's right.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

Let me spell it out for you. A small minority of white butchers filed suit with the Supreme Court for it to recognize that their "privileges and immunities" as "citizens of the United States" were being discriminated against by a New Orleans corporation created by the Louisiana legislature centralizing all slaughterhouse operations in the city.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

But the Supreme Court held that the minority butchers had no entitlement to any additional privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment because it was written explicitly to create a "citizenship of the United States" for the negro, and as white butchers from Louisiana they were already recognized as Citizens of their State who already had equal protection under the law provided for them at Article 4 Section 2. In other words, white man go home ! No protection under the Fourteenth !

[OhHen]

what is in the 14th amendment is already in the rest of the constitution.

if the 14th amendment is for guaranteeing citizenship for those formerly in servitude. i hardly see how that would revoke citizenship or rights of anybody else

[Truthbandit]

Try and find the term Citizen in the first ten amendments to the constitution! So the 14th is different and is constitutionally invalid due to its contradictions.

[OhHen]

"citizen" is one of those "people" the constitution talks about.

easy to misunderstand? hardly.

kind of like torture is clearly unconstitutional as "cruel & unusual punishment".

yah gotta be a joker to miss it.

"the people" are citizens rather than subjects.

it is subjects that make one "belong to the state". kind of like a "king's subjects".

citizen is a word that recognizes a person's earthly right to participate in the running of events that mold one's life.

[OhHen]

one would have to see the case.

as what is here doesn't really spell anything out to me.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

That's because you can't see the forest from the trees. Whereas the Supreme Court did not tell the white butchers that their Citizenship was revoked by the Fourteenth, but rather that theirs rested where it had always rested at A.1 S.2 in conjunction with A.4 S.2 because they were already Citizens of the State of Louisiana and not "citizens of the United States" as defined by the 14th Amendment.

[OhHen]

human rights, such as written down in the constitutions under the heading 'bill of rights' are inalienable, period. no entity has legal or other authority to prevent them from being exercised. DC is sort of interesting. the congress should unconditionally grant the wishes of the people of that city statehood so they can have voting representation as well as that taxation.

[OhHen]

people who have done research using primary documents on this sort of thing can be found at

poclad dot org

imo, corporations are the elephant in the living room of self-rule, self-determination, freedom, liberty, all that jazz.

oligarchs hide behind the legal shield of privilege that is the corporation.

and corporations rule the world

[truthtrekker]

Mike the 14th Amendment made all American slaves through adhesion clauses to the USA, Inc. I feel it neccesary to tell you Corporate Personhood pales in significance to this mammoth deception.

It puzzles me why you would not post my video response on 14th Amendment citizenship???

Why don't you want people to see it???

[truthtrekker]

Hey thanks Mike I see it up there, let's make sure our fellow slaves see this and decide to break the shackles of their economic bondage.

Thanks!

[MikePryslak]

Dan, which chapter of THE CORPORATION explains this so I can watch it again?

[truthtrekker]

Great video and very well presented.

[OhHen]

only humans have rights.

property, a tractor, a wheelbarrow, a corporation, is only a tool for us human beings to conduct some large project.

tools, inanimate objects do not have rights.

a human being might have a right to own something like a wheelbarrow or a house, but those objects do not have rights

[scoobeee]

"Juristic persons"have been around a long time so law can recognize a corp or group for contracts,lawsuits etc.Saying corp personhood was a mistake is like saying slavery was an accident.Slavery WAS the culture just as Corporations and capitalism ARE ours.Corporations have robbed the 14th amendment of its true purpose of protecting the rights of freed slaves. It's been used to protect the rights of corporations much more than freed slaves/ african americans.

[anubus55555]

I was looking at the responces to Mitt Romney's vlog and this was by far and away and the best.

[mozartsnum1fan]

Corporations aren't immortal...take a look at Enron...need i say more? corporations are just as vulnerable to go under as small businesses.

[Tacos25n28]

good message but how can corp personhood be abolished? We wish you gave that info. Also defining it a bit better would help. You did touched on the thing most of them do. And that is they force the vote and pay for who they want in office...

[MikePryslak]

Abolishing CP won't be easy; we will have to amend the constitution. That won't happen until MOST citizens become outraged after realizing that corporate influence IS so effective that corporations, not individuals, control our government. They use their influence to distract us. If we make progress, they'll convince us they need CP to keep our economy growing. They don't, but they're very good at making us believe what they want us to believe.

Who should control our democracy?

[Tacos25n28]

What part of the constitution will be amended? or is it going to be added to? Where could We really find details about this stuff?

[MikePryslak]

Thom Hartmann - ThomHartmann dot com - suggests we replace "person" with "natural person" in the 14th Amendment.

"Santa Clara Blues" - found online at ReclaimDemocracy dot ORG on their Corporate Personhood page under Recommended Articles - is more pragmatic in its two pages on "How we can revoke Corporate Personhood."

You can find more ideas at:

POCLAD dot ORG

WILPF dot ORG

ReclaimDemocracy dot ORG

PersonsInc dot ORG

Or just do a search on "corporate personhood".

[Blissinflux]

Thank you for posting this. Had I met more people like you in Florida, I wouldn't have felt the need to relocate to the Pacific Northwest, to escape the political apathy of the Treasure Coast.

[PeteMaine]

Thanks for bringing this up. For anyone interested in the history of this issue, I recommend Thom Hartmann's great book "Unequal Protection". He also discusses it frequently on his Air America radio program.

[MikePryslak]

Thanks for the reference. I found his web site - thomhartmann dot com - and I like his ten steps to restore democracy in America. I especially like his technical solution to abolish corporate personhood: replace "person" with "natural person" in the 14th Amendment.

Governor Romney, would you support Thom Hartmann's ten steps to restore democracy in America? If not, why not?

[JohnNoZ35]

Great point! And the law forces corporations to act as anti-social people, as well.

[RobbieXyOhio]

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who would support this. He's pro-democracy, the rest, even Obama, are pro-corporation.

The only way to kill corporate personhood and speech as money is to change our election system - that's why I support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV forces every candidate to respond to every issue, even those brought up by "fringe" candidates. With IRV, new and better ideas finally get discussed.

Nice presentation, but no way will Mitt respond to you.

[MikePryslak]

How does IRV force every candidate to respond to every issue? Doesn't IRV mean we rank all the candidates?

I hope you're wrong and Governor Romney addresses my video.

[RobbieXyOhio]

IRV provides an incentive for candidates to reduce

negative campaigning. Candidates may need the

second ranking of their opponents' supporters to win.

Candidates win by building coalitions and finding

common ground, not mudslinging. They find common ground by addressing each others' issues.

[MikePryslak]

Sadly, you were right and Governor Romney didn't respond.

[seekNdiscernment]

Does corporate personhood have any advantages? Does it act as a catalyst for healthy risk taking?

Is the personhood really seperable from the definition of corporation, the word implying a 'body.'

Isn't the "personhood" allready unequal? Corporations can't vote, they pay taxes, they can't hold office, and direct candidate support gets messy.

[MikePryslak]

CP has advantages for a chosen few, but not for the democracy itself. Corporations existed profitably before they had personhood rights, so yes it's separable. You're right that corporations are unequal from individuals, but effectively they have more power. The CEO of any fortune 1000 can call his/her senator or congressman and have a phone conversation. You and I can't. I can't even get a letter returned. Indirect support is the problem.

[MikePryslak]

People have inalienable rights. People empower government to protect those rights. Government charters corporations and assigns rights to the corporations. Corporations use those rights to direct the government. Now the people no longer have the ability to direct their government. It's no longer a democracy.

Now you know about the issue, but don't trust me for the details, I'll get them wrong. Instead learn more by reading the papers and books from the experts I cited.

[seekNdiscernment]

I looked at the site you mentioned. As it seems rather one sided and certain of it's conclusion I will here take the "devil's advocate" position and ask a few ?s

[seekNdiscernment]

I hope my last comment just isn't showing up for some reason. I'm hoping it wasn't deleted. But, as I can't see it, I fear it was. Granted YouTube's been weird on me before.

My question was, in short, what alternative set-up would be offered? If not corporate personhood could you please give a detailed vision of what might replace it? It's easy to say something's horrible, it's quite another to put forward a more viable alternative.

[MikePryslak]

seekNdiscernment, in addition to my previous response, there are two videos posted by bussdriver on YouTube with more legal detail. Using the YouTube search, look for:

1) Corporate Personhood and Money as Speech

and

2) The Root of our broken Democracy Problem

[seekNdiscernment]

You talk about the need for balance and proper rights, but not improper ones. Could you please elaborate and specify, in as much detail as possible, what rights they should have and how we should interact with them and contrast that to what is done now.

Basically what is your alternate plan. It's easy to claim something is a fallacy or wrong or harmfull. It's quite another to give a comprehensive and viable alternative.

Give us an alternative. In detail.

[MikePryslak]

Most of your questions are answered in a basic way in the second half of the 30-page document, "The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy" by William Meyers. Google "santa clara blues" to get it. There are many great resources with detailed answers to your questions written by people who have studied this issue for years. Start with the web site at POCLAD dot ORG and their Links section.

[neothomist1275]

Examples of corporations:

--The United States, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S.A., USA (trademarks of the District of Columbia)

--The State of New York, the State of Georgia etc.,

--JOHN SMITH (your all caps 'straw man' on your drivers license, SS card and all legal documents and contracts)

[EchelonMonitor]

Don't forget the corporation's right to free speech, which was used to justify granting them the freedom to buy up all the tv and radio stations and newspapers they wanted.

The resulting loss of the free and independent press in America, something so critical to our democracy, is why democracy is a thing of the past in America.

[MikePryslak]

I agree my presentation isn't thrilling. I've got to learn more about making videos.

The subject matter would become thrilling if we revolted by only voting for candidates who would pledge to abolish corporate personhood. Governor Romney, will you make that pledge?

There's a great movie on You Tube about corporations. Go to the machbar channel and look at the play list. The movie is THE CORPORATION.

[RoddyYoung]

What a great statement. I agree and trusts or family trusts are but another way that hinders the extremes of wealth and poverty. Seach Baha'i on wikipedia for some more questions I would like you to answer from this perspective

[starcruiser1]

Great job, Mitt will take a close look at this one for sure, but like others have said, it's not going to happen. There does need to be some reform, theyget away with what ever they can steal, from the employees and the govt.

[mwest1234]

I like your video, but Romney and other politicians will never give up all the money and percs coming from big corporations via multiple clever routes. Still, great video!

[mikejaz2]

BTW, nice simple technique with your video...I think even a professional obfuscator like Mitt Romney will understand this

[mikejaz2]

Right on! Making corporations non-entities will certainly help things.

[drzendoom]

Nice Opinions I would have liked it better if you defined corprate personhood in the beggining. Also some graphics might make the presentation more interesting including movement. Aditionaly humans tend to not look as attractive when shot from a low angle, try moving the camera up higher or sitting down.

[brianmann01]

Mike, you make an excellent presentation. it is concise and well thought out. I am going to look at what you say for myself. thanks

[pinadulce69]

Is that a moose on Old Glory?

Interesting insights and perspectives.

[MikePryslak]

Yes.  It's a t-shirt from Grand Teton National Park.