The global elite and multinational corporations stand accused of hiding behind tax shelters worldwide and secreting assets upwards of $32 trillion.
Move to Amend’s “We The People Amendment” clearly and unambiguously establishes that only people have constitutional rights and that money is not speech. This means that any artificial entity created through the political process can have legal privileges (but not inherent, inalienable rights), and that the issue of how to best protect the integrity of elections through campaign finance laws is a political question, not a constitutional one.
It is important to remember that one’s constitutional rights are not dependent upon the political process. Any law (local, state or federal) that infringes upon a person’s ability to exercise inherent, unalienable constitutional rights, absent some other compelling state interest or public interest in upholding other inherent, unalienable rights, is illegitimate, and such a law should be overturned, whether it has majority political support or not.
We invite you to join us in our next project: We the People Listen. We the People Listen is a nationwide community door-knocking effort. Move to Amend volunteers will use a short survey to start people talking about what matters to them. Click here to get involved.
It’s a shame when the very people appointed to safeguard justice are the same people who vote to destroy one of the most powerful equal-opportunity shields from injustice in American history. This week, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the crown jewel of the Civil Rights movement, and one of the most famous pieces of legislation in American History.
Chief Justice Roberts stated in his ruling that, "things have changed dramatically,” implying that Section 4 is now unnecessary. Yet, since 2000 the VRA has been invoked 74 times in order to protect voter equality. According to dissenting Justice Ruth Ginsberg, throwing out Section 4 is like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
When judicial rulings create law, it’s commonly known as judicial activism. "Lochnerizing" is when the courts invalidate democratically enacted laws while granting corporations constitutional rights.
In a 1905 Supreme Court case, Lochner v. New York, the Court struck down a New York state law that limited the amount of hours a baker could work in a day. The Court decided the law was a violation of the constitutional liberty of contract between two “persons:” the baker and the corporation for which he worked. In so doing, the Justices assumed they knew better what was good for New York than New Yorkers did, while granting corporations constitutional rights, thus Lochnerizing the law.