Profits tax on corporations would fund the military and Homeland Security. If they don't want to pay those taxes, let them engineer a Pentagon reduction. Then we will know how much of the defense budget is really necessary.
Profits on all other businesses would fund the remaining government operations.
If this taxation fully funds all three federal budgets, there will be no need for taxes on bank interest, telephone services, or other such needs. States can tax any way they wish.
Hopefully this type of taxation would encourage corporations and businesses to stop those practices that result in more government. If they want "smaller government" let them earn "smaller government."
3) Treaties on war and commerce.
Such actions are a problem that few notice. The Constitution places the power to declare war and to regulate international commerce with the full Congress. But it gives the Senate and President the power over treaties. And since Treaties are the "supreme law" of the land" (Article VI) the House has no say in the matter.
This nation has entered into numerous treaties calling for military action to aid treaty partners. We went to war in Korea under treaty obligations with the United Nations. We went to war in Vietnam under provisions of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and went into the Balkans conflict because of NATO Treaty authorization. This should be altered to allow all assistance possible except for military action, which would require the approval of the entire Congress.
We entered into trade agreements by treaty and that has allowed millions of American jobs to be eliminated as American corporations closed US operations to open factories in slave-labor-wage nations.
4) Personhood of corporations.
We must remove personhood status of corporations and leave them strictly to Congress's power to regulate commerce. A 1886 Supreme Court decision granted corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution under bizarre reasoning.
David Korten's "The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism" said:
"Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that, 'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.' A two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."
This decision was bizarre because a court usually will hear two sides to an argument and make a decision siding with one of the sides and will not deviate from the points argued. It does not arbitrarily render an opinion based on nothing.
This argument is also illogical. By saying a corporation is a person deserving the "equal protection of the law" the 14th affords all persons meddles with Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3, power of Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce. There is no balancing provision to regulate persons. What do we follow; the Constitution or one SCOTUS judge? On these grounds, this "decision" should be voided but our right-wing court will not do that to another right-wing position. Thus a constitutional amendment is needed, and it should also prohibit one corporation from owning another corporation.
5) Subversion of the Constitution:
Profits on all other businesses would fund the remaining government operations.
If this taxation fully funds all three federal budgets, there will be no need for taxes on bank interest, telephone services, or other such needs. States can tax any way they wish.
Hopefully this type of taxation would encourage corporations and businesses to stop those practices that result in more government. If they want "smaller government" let them earn "smaller government."
Such actions are a problem that few notice. The Constitution places the power to declare war and to regulate international commerce with the full Congress. But it gives the Senate and President the power over treaties. And since Treaties are the "supreme law" of the land" (Article VI) the House has no say in the matter.
This nation has entered into numerous treaties calling for military action to aid treaty partners. We went to war in Korea under treaty obligations with the United Nations. We went to war in Vietnam under provisions of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and went into the Balkans conflict because of NATO Treaty authorization. This should be altered to allow all assistance possible except for military action, which would require the approval of the entire Congress.
We entered into trade agreements by treaty and that has allowed millions of American jobs to be eliminated as American corporations closed US operations to open factories in slave-labor-wage nations.
4) Personhood of corporations.
We must remove personhood status of corporations and leave them strictly to Congress's power to regulate commerce. A 1886 Supreme Court decision granted corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution under bizarre reasoning.
David Korten's "The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism" said:
"Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that, 'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.' A two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."
This decision was bizarre because a court usually will hear two sides to an argument and make a decision siding with one of the sides and will not deviate from the points argued. It does not arbitrarily render an opinion based on nothing.
This argument is also illogical. By saying a corporation is a person deserving the "equal protection of the law" the 14th affords all persons meddles with Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3, power of Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce. There is no balancing provision to regulate persons. What do we follow; the Constitution or one SCOTUS judge? On these grounds, this "decision" should be voided but our right-wing court will not do that to another right-wing position. Thus a constitutional amendment is needed, and it should also prohibit one corporation from owning another corporation.
5) Subversion of the Constitution:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
