"Fisherma'am" Proposes 28th Amendment: Separation Of Corporation And State

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - "Fisherma'am" Proposes 28th Amendment: Separation Of Corporation And State stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 11-10-08 02:22 PM   |   Updated: 12-11-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Earns Exxonmobil

Every so often an idea comes along that rings with such clarity and purpose that it ignites the imaginations of millions of people. That spark of excitement becomes hope, hope becomes action, action becomes community, and that community grows to become a movement. Marine biologist, author, fisherma'am, and Exxon Valdez survivor, Dr. Riki Ott has such an idea.

Exxon's recently reported record profits marks a new height of American corporate corruption and influence over our federal government--corporations find more protection under the law than American citizens, health and safety regulations are stripped away to serve profits ahead of people, politicians serve only their corporate backers, and our environment is falling victim to the lustful greed of this disaster capitalism. How did it come to this?


Dr. Riki Ott is launching the movement for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution: Separation of Corporation and State. In the video above, she explains what a 28th Amendment will accomplish, how it is possible, why it is necessary for our democracy.

In Riki's own words:

In my book, Not One Drop, I answer the question I frequently heard on the streets in Cordova. (It's a small town where people often visit in groups on Main Street or at the post office.) How did corporations get so big where they could manipulate our legal system?


As survivors of the Exxon Valdez spill and 20-year lawsuit, practically everyone in town has first-hand experience with a legal system that failed to deliver justice and Exxon's promise to make us whole.

In researching our nation's legal history, I found the answer. In this 4-minute video, I explain the solution--passing the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: separation of corporation and state.

Please listen. Then ask others to listen. In Not One Drop, I explain this idea more fully. Together we can build a movement to restore government of, for, and by the people.

There's even a Facebook group dedicated to the movement.

Story continues below
advertisement

TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO:

I am a survivor and witness of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It happened in my backyard, Prince William Sound, Alaska.

We have been in a lawsuit now for nearly two decades, and Exxon has managed to drag this out while it has managed to increase its profits to, basically, obscene levels: over $40 billion in net profits now. How did things get this bad?

The conclusion that I came to in Not One Drop is that we need the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: the separation of corporation and state.

Starting in 1886, judges started recognizing corporations had rights accorded to people. The first one was the 14th Amendment. And nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights, do we find the word "corporation." This is totally judicial fiat. What this has done is allow a consolidation of wealth and power to the corporations that now threatens to destroy the republic. We want separated church and state—we now need to separate corporation and state.

On March 24, 1989—which is when [the] Exxon [Valdez] grounded and spilled 11–38 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound, I was commercial fishing. I held a commercial fishing permit, and I fished salmon. I also held a Masters and a PhD in marine toxicology. Exxon came to Cordova, Alaska, stood in our high school gym, and promised us, "We will make you whole." Instead, Exxon worked behind the scenes to eliminate thousands of business claims. Exxon threw an army of attorneys at this case. And it's not just the Exxons of the world, it's any of these big transnational corporations have the ability, because of their wealth and power, to completely overwhelm small communities that get in their way.

If we had had the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, Exxon would not have been able to use the 5th Amendment and the 7th Amendment.

The 7th Amendment is that facts tried by a jury cannot be undermined or revisited by higher courts. So in this case, a jury of peers, ordinary people, determined that the price that Exxon had to pay was one year's net profit. Exxon challenged the amount, and also that punitive damages should be held at all.

Exxon also used, in a related lawsuit, the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment is a takings—takings of property. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, there was a federal law passed (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990) that essentially banned the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound. It banned any tanker that has spilled over a million gallons from transporting oil in Prince William Sound. Exxon said, that is a takings of our future profit: that's illegal under the 5th Amendment. If Exxon was not a person, Exxon would not have been able to apply the 5th Amendment.

Five years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground, we had our hearing, and the jury awarded us—the fishermen, the natives—$5 billion in punitive damages and $287 million in compensatory damages. Exxon appealed that $5 billion for over fourteen years, and ultimately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finally threw its hands in the air and cut the 5 billion in half. The Supreme Court, in June of 2008, slashed the $2.5 billion to $507 million.

If we're planning on passing a livable planet onto future generations, the democracy debate needs to be entwined with the sustainable future debate, and I believe now that the best way to do that is to pass the 28th Amendment to the Constitution—separation of corporation and state—and strip corporations of their personhood.

Every so often an idea comes along that rings with such clarity and purpose that it ignites the imaginations of millions of people. That spark of excitement becomes hope, hope becomes action, action b...
Every so often an idea comes along that rings with such clarity and purpose that it ignites the imaginations of millions of people. That spark of excitement becomes hope, hope becomes action, action b...
Filed by Dave Burdick  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
62
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- vandegrasse I'm a Fan of vandegrasse 195 fans permalink
photo

Then they'd probably get off tax-free!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 11/13/2008

Separation of Corporation and State. An amendment to the Constitution. What a GREAT IDEA. From a simple concept comes a solution.

Corporations are NOT people, they do NOT vote, they are NOT citizens. They do not go to war and die.

The corporations have a vested interest to bias everything for themselves and reduce everybody else's slice of the pie.. Hence the need to balance and separation of State and Corporations. Adam Smith wrote about that. There was a great article in the Smithsonian regarding Adam Smith's view about the counterbalancing effect of good government against avarice and greed. I've been looking for the article and cannot find it on the Smithsonian web site. Anybody remember it, or know about it.

Sign me up for the 28th Amendment !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 11/12/2008
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 30 fans permalink

Separation of corporation and State...so­unds good to me.

With it there would have been no $700 Billion bail out.
No Detroit bail out.
No FDIC.
No government pension insurance.
No government health care.
And on.... and on.... and on.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 11/12/2008
- CVN65 I'm a Fan of CVN65 25 fans permalink

Dear Riki-I have some amendments of my own. I would like to require any elected official that is running for any office (except reelection) to have to vacate their current office. Since they are campaigning full time they cannot attend to the people's business and should definitely not be collecting a salary. I think that those seeking reelection should be required to spend 75% of their time diong their actual job. My other amendment would prohibit any project paid for with public money from being named after any elected official for a period of twenty years after their death. All public buildings, roads and bridges would be named for "Taxpayers" or "Veterans". Enough of the self-aggrandizement at my expense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 11/12/2008
- CVN65 I'm a Fan of CVN65 25 fans permalink

Dear Riki-don't you think that the term "survivor" of the oil spill is a little melodramatic? How many people did not survive? Are we not all "survivors" of that oil spill? When, exactly, were you placed in harm's way? I also have to point out that while you are correct that "corporation" does not appear in the Constitution, neither does the term "separation of church and state". The Establishment Clause prohibits the collection of taxes to support an official FEDERAL religion like the Church of England. At the time Massachucets did collect taxes for their official STATE religion. Jefferson coined the term "separation of church and state" in a letter to a church congregation, citing, specifically, a need to protect religion from government interference. He also stated that our form of government is wholly unsuited for an amoral, Godless people, which seems to imply that he thought religion can supply a strong moral compass for our elected officials.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 11/12/2008
- mergina I'm a Fan of mergina 84 fans permalink
photo

Maybe corporations and religion should get MORE in bed with each other. I second this emotion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 PM on 11/12/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 257 fans permalink

Absolutely!

Let's see the full text of this amendment.

Put up an online petition.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 11/11/2008
- Cyano I'm a Fan of Cyano 3 fans permalink

The so-called conservatives continuously rant that we need to get "government" out of our lives, when in fact, much governance has been outsourced to corporations. One example: there are many people who can't get the medical treatment they need because their health insurance corporation won't pay their rightful claim. The right-wingers raise the fearful specter of the govt. rationing health care, when it's already being rationed by for-profit corporations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 11/11/2008
- CVN65 I'm a Fan of CVN65 25 fans permalink

Cyano- this is because the person purchasing the insurance is not the consumer. As long as employers are paying for the health care, they will pick the best coverage for the best price, not always the best coverage available. This leads to a lot of malarkey with the insurance companies. When individuals are selecting their own plans, the insurance companies will have to be a lot more responsive or they will soon be out of business. I am on my third plan in five years for my employees; I am trying to do the best I can for them but they don't seem to understand that everytime the fees go up that that is less money available to give them as raises. At the same time the insurance companies cut their reimbursements to the doctors and surgeons while the price of everything else goes up. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for us, we will still be able to feed our kids, but don't imagine that anyone is going to put themselves through all of that work, debt and lost youth just to get by. Our population of doctors and dentists is old and dwindling, less people are interested in going into medicine and who can blame them? Did you know that a doctor that wins a malpractice case still sees a large increase in malpractice premiums?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 11/12/2008
- Emerald1943 I'm a Fan of Emerald1943 288 fans permalink
photo

I'm no lawyer, and all this is over my head. But what about some common sense here? Corporations should not have the rights of an individual unless they are subject to the same laws as individuals! How hard is that?

I would love to hear President Obama's thoughts!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 11/11/2008
- Skytouch I'm a Fan of Skytouch 2 fans permalink

@SirReal1 said "The notion that 'profitability' should be the primary function of Corporate entities should be insulting to ANY HUMAN BEING!"

I don't have a problem with corporate profitability, but it is corporate person-hood that is wrong in my opinion. The fact that a corporation by law can emulate a human being and enjoy the same privileges is frankly appalling.

In the late 1800s, railroad barons and other corporations recognized the inherent power of the 14th Amendment, Article 1 which stated, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Their lawyers' strategy was to argue that corporations were 'artificial persons' with the same rights as 'natural persons'. This percolated at the state level for years, until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886 and declared that the 14th Amendment should apply to corporations as well.

This decision 120 years ago is what enables a company with deep pockets like Monsanto today to sue an individual farmer out of business by claiming individual harm.

My response is simple: Corporations are not people, regardless of what our courts have ruled. We must abide by existing laws but as citizens we can also work to correct them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

It is sometimes difficult to imply emphasis in the written word, and in this instance I guess I should have made a better effort.

The emphasis should have been on PRIMARY!

My complaint is certainly NOT on Corporations profiting, nor their stockholders, nor their workers. My complaint is that their PROFIT is put ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. It is the basis of Business Law, and, in fact, the only LAW they are held accountable to.

A Board, may approve an action that results in a million deaths, may cause the financial ruin of an entire nation, may destroy habitat for hundreds of endangered species, or pollute the natural resources of an entire continent (or even the entire world), and face no more than a "stiff fine", but, IF THEY FAIL TO ACT in a manner that maximizes PROFIT, they can be looking at unemployment, Financial restitution, or imprisonment. There IS something wrong with this!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 11/11/2008
photo

What is an obscene profit? Is there a profit level that is less offensive? Is an obscene profit based on the dollar amount earned or on a margin of profit?

She kept mentioning a 28th amendment calling for a seperation of state and corporation but she doesn't articulate the actual wording she would have. It's difficult to get behind her position when she doesn't define the position.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

Surprisingly I agree with your question, tho' I believe you were simply asking it as a rhetorical device, I think it is a question that should be answered.

I think a frank discussion on this is necessary. I'm fairly certain that CEO's and other Executives probably feel that they are being "fairly" compensated, and likely do not see their compensation as excessive, but in recent years I've seen numbers like "executive compensation has risen 400% in 5 years, while the average workers compensation has risen by 3%" and other outrageous comparisons.

I guess at present, without specific quantities being defined, OBSCENE PROFITS are defined as numbers that the average person would have to stop and write down in order to state how many zero's that is, or something similar. Given that we seem to be able to readily define obscene imagery, obscene words, and obscene concepts, it would seem to me that we also should be able to define "obscene profits".

Of course, the question of how the profits of man's labor should be divided has confounded man for millenia, and has been the impetus for the myriad forms of Government and Social structure that we have tried. To date, our current form of Democracy seems to have worked the best, though we are certainly at a point where some careful restructuring would seem to be warranted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 11/11/2008
- CVN65 I'm a Fan of CVN65 25 fans permalink

Well, no real answer there. I think that NFL and MLB players make too much money, as well. I also think that Oprah makes obscene money. The truth is that this is purely rhetoric and cannot be implemented in any equitable way. While I truly believe this, I have also seen the whole "good old boy" Corporate networking sham at work. While some people, through extreme dedication and hard work, deserve just compensation for their efforts, it is often a matter of who you know and are loyal to on the way up. The whole scam is based on everybody voting large salaries and benefits packages for everybody else and keeping mum. It is ugly but the heavy hand of government is even uglier.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 11/12/2008
photo

I think that some of the people misunderstand that corporate citizenship is TOLERATED by the federal government. No real law exists. Corporations want to portray themselves as member of the community. Say a large company moves into a financially distressed city, offering hundreds of jobs to them. In exchange, the community gives the company tax concessions, free land, etc. That company may in turn, build a new park or community center. That is the corporate citizenship model.

Its when the company gives the community the finger and says "You pick up the tab. We know we made a mistake but correcting it would cost too much and we offered a huge bonus to our CEO. SO, F.U. Podunk, USA! Were outta' here", like the Alaska incident, that the issue becomes a screw-job for normal people. Companies want to trade off the things they do to enhance the community, in exchange for members of the community to bow down to them at the right occasion.

That's the dilemma of corporate personhood.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 11/11/2008
- Chaucea I'm a Fan of Chaucea 8 fans permalink
photo

Lobbying needs to be made illegal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 11/11/2008
- kevman08 I'm a Fan of kevman08 4 fans permalink
photo

I don't think that lobbying itself needs to be made illegal. Anyone of us should be allowed to speak to our congress people in order to get our needs met. I think that lobby contributions needs to be made illegal so that large corp. lobbyist cannot buy votes which is what goes on now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 11/11/2008
- suec03 I'm a Fan of suec03 11 fans permalink

To the extent that lobbying is First Amendment petitioning our government for redress of grievances, it must be protected. The problem is concentrations of wealth and the electoral process. Through mergers and acquisitions, corporations in key industries have grown very large and had access to large sums of money to hire full-time lobbyists. In addition, trade associations representing groups of entities within an industry can charge membership dues to fund lobbying activity. This leaves small businesses, nonprofit community groups, grassroots activists and individuals unable to hire squads of lobbyists in sufficient numbers to counteract the corporate lobbyists. In addition, corporate lobbyists are key bundlers of donations for political candidates. How can we reform the election system to continue grassroots internet fundraising or use some sort of public financing to counteract the campaign fundraising power of corporate lobbyists? We may learn now that Wall Street has been hit financially, and corporations will have to determine how much they can afford to spend on lobbying in the new financial climate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

WE HAVE, for the first time, in my lifetime, elected a populist President, who, by virtue of OUR SUPPORT, OWES NOTHING to corporate sponsors!

NOW IS THE TIME to press this issue! There will likely no better opportunity than we now have to correct the flawed system that places profit above LIFE itself.

WRITE your representatives, write a blog, write your relatives, write the President elect, write opinion pieces for your local newspapers. WRITE anyone you think will help!

It has been said that the "Pen is mightier than the sword", it is now time to show that it is mightier than the DOLLAR as well!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 11/11/2008

You're kidding yourself when you say Obama owes nothing to corporate sponsors. He got millions from them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

Faux News much?

Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. aside, THIS President owes nothing compared to the contributions of the MILLIONS of individual donors across the nation, that were the bulk of his campaign finances.

GetReal!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 11/11/2008
- GhostNyc I'm a Fan of GhostNyc 23 fans permalink

Obama's debt to the people of the United States is greater than what he owes to Big corps.
At the very least, consider this entire election process as an awakening process for millions of people around the world that the current system does NOT work and we need to unite to change, fight, rebuild our world (which may include destruction of many of the out moded systems control such as The Federal Reserve, Religious influence on gov't, etc)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

While I can certainly agree with problemchild and mjt, that there should be extensive discussion on this proposal before any action is taken (given that this would turn much of "business law on its ear), I do also wish to state that there is an OBVIOUS need to consider the many "falsehoods" that currently permeate the present state of corporate law.

I've read several articles over the past few years that highlight the convoluted and corrupt nature of our present system regarding the status of "corporate personhood" and feel that this issue is fundamentally at odds with our basic tenants of Democracy.

The notion that "profitability" should be the primary function of Corporate entities should be insulting to ANY HUMAN BEING! This primary rule of business essentially imposes a legal writ upon Corporate Directors to engage in all manner of actions that will provide for an improved "bottom line" regardless of the impact on the HUMAN inhabitants of the world that they operate in. It allows for the calculation of "penalty costs" (e.g. fines and liabilities for what would be "criminal actions" were they enacted by an individual) vs. profitability, with the ultimate result being "if it increases our profit, regardless of the potential costs (in $$$ and in human suffering) WE MUST "DO IT" (a tip of the hat to the NIKE slogan).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

The other falsehood, of course, is the notion that a CORPORATION is a PERSON, entitled to ALL RIGHTS afforded any citizen of the Nation, BUT NOT ACCOUNTABLE to ANY OF THE LAWS regarding PERSONAL CONDUCT!

Some well written comments from the web:

http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/afd/santaclara.html

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_donald_a_060904_david_vs__goliath_3a_c.htm

http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/feature1a.html

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/08/02/the_corporate_theft_of_personhood_americ

You would think that a change in the law, simply defining that any ruling that places the "corporations rights" above Human rights, would be a "no-brainer", but the corporations have built a global empire based upon these legal falsehoods, and deployed legions of Lawyers to fight for their standing.

It is time for us to fight back!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 11/11/2008
- SirReal1 I'm a Fan of SirReal1 64 fans permalink

Sorry!

I left out an essential word:

You would think that a change in the law, simply defining that any ruling that places the "corporations rights" above Human rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, would be a "no-brainer",

My humble apologies!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 11/11/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect