"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

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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- DragonFly I'm a Fan of DragonFly 18 fans permalink
photo

Being that it was a clerical mistake to start with, 'Corporation' should be stripped of its personhood status.
Of course we know what an uphill battle that would bring!

But non-the-less, the volume should be turned up on this topic, both publicly as well as politically.

Who knows?
The idea of a black man becoming President of the USA once seemed unattainable too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 11/11/2008
- wildmother I'm a Fan of wildmother 10 fans permalink
photo

From Philadelphia
The Power axis here is Developers and Politicians. It used to be Coal and Rail Roads. The municipal agencies like Planning, Zoning, Air Management, City Council are the servants of the developers and the "money."

The world has turned upside down. The government is suppose to be the servant of the people. Now the people need to learn to be the Boss and not the sheep.

Civil rights of the average citizen in Philadelphia are blatantly ignored and people get hurt. The street is a war zone because the corruption is at the top and trickles down.

Yes to separation of Cooperation and State. They have run the government and committed enough crimes, hurting all of us. The Czar is out of control and there needs to be a hanging.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 AM on 11/11/2008

One solution to the video-transcript question would be to cross-post the video itself to YouTube, where it can be downloaded and then watched. Unlike the link you have on this page -- which I can't play either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 AM on 11/11/2008

I have a complementary proposal, that hinges on the very "identity and legal personhood" of corporations. I don't myself think that a corporation IS a person, nor do I think corporations should be treated as such under the law, but consider:

IF a corporation is a person under the law, then they should be subject (as they are not) to the same punishments that are meted out to citizens, when citizens break the law. Yet, when a corporation commits manslaughter -- unintended homicide -- they are not imprisoned for it, or even kept from operating freely. They get a fine, when their actions result in the death of a person. Why can't I get that deal?

I believe that if corporations behave in ways that hurt "other" citizens, they should be directly liable for their actions -- up to and including summary dissolution and direct culpability for the board members and officers that set (or allowed to persist) the corporate policies that let the offenses occur.

Fact is, corporations are treated as if they have MORE rights than private citizens. And no, it's NOT based in law, but in grandfathered favored interpretations of law, that are in fact baseless, and should never have been let continue, once started.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:41 AM on 11/11/2008
- JScott I'm a Fan of JScott 21 fans permalink

That's what I was thinking take personhood away from corporations first.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 11/11/2008

problemchild raises a very good point . . . Corporate law was created by the government to help investors limit liability and reduce their investment risks. While I agree that it is important to hold the concerns of individuals above those of corporations, it is important to realize that the reason the US is such a successful country is because of the innovation and profitability derived from this corporate law. Before you damn all corporations as corrupt and greedy, realize that all of us live much more comfortable lives as a result of the increased investment resulting from corporate law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 AM on 11/11/2008
- marijam I'm a Fan of marijam 49 fans permalink
photo

What would it REALLY take to get this done? It isn't likely we'd be able to actually get an amendment, but could we possibly get a Supreme Court reversal? Either way, I can hear the howls of outrage already by the entire business community. We've already got wacko politicians in Georgia thinking Obama is going to try and impose Marxism. What would they think of this? I wonder what constitutional scholar Obama thinks of this?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 AM on 11/11/2008

This is fascinating. I'd support the idea for the sake of debate at least. But I have some problems. For one, the goal of incorporating to begin with is to protect against liability and ruin as a result.

In our metaphors and in practice our government has itself already become a corporation. Citizens are reduced to "consumers"and "taxpayers", and many claim they want officials with "executive" and "managment" experience because government is about "fiscal repsonsibility." Government should be different, but we taught to think that "provide for the general welfare" is most effectively done by protecting those who create jobs and give out the benefits. Cleverly, its our companies that have a been relegated to doling out social benefits to enhace their competitive recruitment and retention abilities. It's great except as this video shows, you can't fight a corporation or an employer really.

In a way, we've made a false idol out of business and elevated it to the status of God--the danger of which Republicans out to be well cognizant of..They know that God's will is for government to protect citizens. Anyway, the future president of the UN's general assembly who is a former Catholic priest recently made similar statements publicly (see Corsette article, the Nation). Not meaning any offense to atheists here, so I'll just say good luck to anyone who can make a difference..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 AM on 11/11/2008

I'm with you on this... a link where we can download this would be useful I agree, then I could write My Congressman and State Senators and get this off the ground out here.. (So. California). How about it Arianna...how about allowing a link this time... ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 AM on 11/11/2008

Dr. Riki Ott has my vote. Where do I sign?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 11/11/2008
photo

I'm on board!

Two extremely bad laws that need to be changed;
~granting of "pesonhood" to corporations
~the requirement that corporations be run to maximize short-term shareholder returns.

Riki Ott rocks!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 PM on 11/10/2008

The "personhood" of corporations is NOT any sort of legal consideration, but a flawed judicial decision from long ago, that has acquired the force of law through continued observance. It's a precedent with no actual weight, that is observed by the courts simply because everyone says it's so, and no one cared to go to the trouble of countering the idea. At the time, the concept provided a simple, direct way to conceptualize corporate identity under the law.

If corporations were to held to the same standards of behavior and legal liability as private citizens are in this country, there would be severe counter-incentives to them acting as irresponsibly as they now do. I think the spectre of real accountability (up to and including "imprisonment" or a corporate "death penalty") would go a long way toward blunting the worst aspects of profit-seeking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 AM on 11/11/2008
- MSGH I'm a Fan of MSGH 5 fans permalink

Sounds lie the4 best idea I've heard in a LOOOOONG time!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 PM on 11/10/2008
photo

Corporate citizenship has become more and more a reality since Nike pushed the issue to the Supreme Court in the 90's

For information on how this mess got it's start and it's dangers, try this article from Project Censored:

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-corporate-personhood-challenged/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 11/10/2008
- alvdh1 I'm a Fan of alvdh1 25 fans permalink

Gee, there is no separation of corporations and state according to the corporate power brokers over at the Supreme Court. Alito, Thomas, Scalia amd Roberts insanely believe that Corporations have greater legal standing than U.S. citizens and represented by the Exxon settlement. I am hopeful that Obama will have the opportunity to balance the court in favor of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 11/10/2008
- TrnsNtnl I'm a Fan of TrnsNtnl 4 fans permalink

In the mean time I say we all champion the montra of Separation of Corporation and State. We can hope Obama will do something about it all we want but someone has to join Dr Ott making this a growing movement. People have been talking about Separation of Corporation and State for ages as some utopian ideal in this capitalist dominated world but it could be something generation we actually gets done. There are more of us in generation WE willing to stand up to the system and do whats right for the collective. We have amazing power to get things done in the coming 50 years. Google generation WE and read the inspiring info on who is rising to power in the US.

Separation of Corporation and State NOW! Tell your congress people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 11/10/2008

Wait a second . . . Are you suggesting that we use a resource created by a bloodthirsty corrupt corporation, Google, to spread a message? I thought anything and everything corporate was horrible and that no one can possibly benefit from a corporations actions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:07 AM on 11/11/2008
photo

Can we say term limits for justices of the supreme court for a maximum of eight years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 11/10/2008

No, then they could be appointed as soon as a new president is elected. Imagine if that had been the case when Bush was elected. He could have picked all conservative justices and they would have served for his entire presidential career. Any president would pick all 9 of them once they're elected, so then that president would have control of the executive and judicial branches. 10 years would work better, so they don't match up completely and we could have some debate between the brances for parts of presidential reigns.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 11/11/2008
- ouroborous I'm a Fan of ouroborous 62 fans permalink
photo

This is well articulated and thought-out. I've believed for a long time that it is unjust and perverse to grant "personhood" to corporations.

Already, corporations represent the greatest concentrations of wealth and power on the planet; why on earth would be need to also grant them the rights of individuals?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 11/10/2008

What this article fails to point out is that "separation of corporation and state" would also prohibit government from regulating or taxing corporations. This is the case with religion. So, there are 2 sides to the coin. Any variation from this principle and it could not be called a separation. Personally, I believe it would be very worthwhile, as it would eleiminate corporate "preaching from the Board Room", corporate financial participation in the political process, and an end to corporate welfare and earmarks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 11/10/2008
- TrnsNtnl I'm a Fan of TrnsNtnl 4 fans permalink

That needs to be addressed as well. Government needs to tax political churches and should be able to do the same with corporations post Separation of Corporation and State amendment. Death and taxes are supposed to be the only certain thing right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 11/10/2008

I disagree. The ban on taxation stems from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The language (separation of corporation and state) is catchy but sloppy. Certainly the Dr does not intend the idea to prevent Congress from passing laws prohibiting free exercise of corporate will!

She is specifically interested in removing from them the legal fiction that they are persons. I would also like corporations forbade from donating to campaigns, as a form of corporate disenfranchisement, but I think bundlers would take over in place of the straight-up corporate dollars.

The main right I'd like to see unavailable to corporations, and to their stockholders, is bankruptcy insofar as it reflects their decision not to pay for negligence or malice. Shareholders should be individually liable proportionate to their shares in a company, without limit (much as Lloyds stakeholders are now.) This would really make the boards and CEOs pay attention - they would actually have skin in the game, as they say. Small shareholders would also be exposed, but to much less of an extent. Large pension funds would need insurance, probably, to keep investing in the stock market.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 11/10/2008

It all depends on the wording.

My understanding so far is that this is about un-doing the Supreme Court decision (or what is regarded as one, tho some claim it's a transcription error) that said corporations were people, for various purposes. That was in the late 1800s. I think we were able to tax corporations and other organizations even before that (with the exception of churches.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 11/10/2008

It wouldn't either, h'dude. The government can regulate animals, can't they? They can regulate property, land zoning, resource usage, etc; none of which are "people."

And religion is NOT regulated, because of specific constitutional considerations -- which corporations do not enjoy. There would be no reason that we'd "have to" let them run wild.

We could regulate them just like we do utilities, railroads, construction codes...

I would consider it immensely helpful if we simply made it illegal for corporations to contribute ANY money to politics or politicians. The reason such "donations" are allowed is that it's framed as a First Amendment free speech issue.

This is yet another way that the supposed "personhood" of corporations distorts due process. The rights in the Constitution apply specifically to CITIZENS, but applying them to corporations distorts the democratic process in their favor, because the resources commanded by corporations reliably trump those commanded by nearly any individual.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 11/11/2008
- ajm8127 I'm a Fan of ajm8127 2 fans permalink

I like it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 11/10/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 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