Skip to main content

OCCUPY THE COURTS – 1.20.2012!  
by Stephen A. Justino

What a difference two years makes!

On January 21, 2010 the United States United State Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission transforming the United States from a small “d,” small “r” democratic republic into a corporatocracy, and hardly anybody noticed!

Fast-forward to tomorrow - January 20, 2012.  Pro-democracy advocates across the country will be marking the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision by participating in a coordinated, one-day, peaceful occupation of the public spaces in front federal courthouses, including the United States Supreme Court, in Washington, D.C.

This national day of action, organized by Move To Amend, is called OCCUPY THE COURTS - 1.20.2012! and, as of today, there are 130 cities (in 46 states) participating in it!  

Life in a post-Citizens United world has given Americans a rude awaking.  We were assaulted by an unprecedented barrage of negative political attack ads, paid for in large part by the unlimited, mostly anonymous, corporate campaign contributions made legal by the Citizens United decision, during the 2010 mid-term elections.  We watched in disgust as ALEC-backed governors like Scott Walker, Rick Kasich, and Rick Scott have mounted a frontal assault on the middle-class and democratic process.  And, we have reacted in utter disbelief as the new Tea Party Congress, swept into power on that tidal wave of corporate cash, threatened to cause a global economic collapse unless the government agreed to protect tax breaks for the richest Americans.

Seeing the economic, and political, devastation that has been left in the wake of the Citizens United decision, Americans have said ENOUGH!  

The main purpose of OCCUPY THE COURTS is to protest the Supreme Court’s absurd Citizens United decision and, to urge the Congress to pass Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment.  Unlike the other constitutional amendments that have been introduced into the House and the Senate, recently, Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment states clearly, and unequivocally, that:  1) rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings, ONLY (with NO exceptions and NO loopholes); and, 2) spending money to influence elections is NOT protected free speech under the First Amendment.

In other words, Move to Amend’s proposed amendment would change the Constitution so that it says, clearly and unequivocally, that “Corporations are NOT People!” and “Money is NOT Speech.”

Move to Amend will also be using OCCUPY THE COURTS to kick off its 2012 initiative to have at least 50 cities across the country pass citizen-sponsored ballot measures calling for an amendment to the U.S. constitution to end “corporate personhood.”  In 2011, Madison, WI; Boulder, CO, and Missoula, MT all passed ballot measures by wide margins.  In Boulder and Missoula, the ballot measures passed with about 75% of the vote.  In Madison, the voters supported the ballot measure 80% to 20%!

Alternatively, in cities where citizen-sponsored ballot measures are not available, Move to Amend will be encouraging citizens to lobby their city councils to pass a resolution in support of an amendment to the constitution to end “corporate personhood.”  In the past two months, city council resolutions calling for an end to all corporate constitutional rights have passed in Los Angeles; New York City; Albany, NY; and Portland, OR.  

When you combine these electoral victories with both the strong expressions of support from the city councils of the two largest cities in the country and the recent, stunning, decision from the Montana Supreme Court refusing to apply Citizens United to strike down Montana’s century old campaign finance laws, it is clear that the mood in the country has changed.

The effects of “corporate personhood” and “money as speech” have given rise to a new generation of patriots willing to take to the streets in peaceful protest to demand that political power be restored to the People. You can join in that effort by coming out on January 20, 2012 to join an OCCUPY THE COURTS protest at a federal court in your hometown or near-by.  View the OCCUPY THE COURTS map here to find the OCCUPY THE COURTS event near you.

We hope to see you there!

ONWARD!

(Stephen Justino is an attorney in Denver, Colorado.  He is Co-Chair of Colorado Move to Amend, and National Action Coordinator for Move to Amend’s OCCUPY THE COURTS – 1.20.2012!)

Originally posted to Krashkopf on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:53 PM PST.

Also republished by Occupy Wall Street and Progressive Hippie.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great post about tomorrow's actions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jacey

    OccupySpringfieldMO is on the map and I'll try to post some pictures if I can.  I'm really looking forward to it...sounds like a good time and a great educational opportunity.

  •  Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate (0+ / 0-)

    personhood. At least read the case before you start messing with the Constitution. I also advise that you read the Constitution. Proponents of an amendment are legally incompetent, or frauds, or both. The case against an amendment is well established. Friends of the Supreme Court do not want Congress to exercise its Art. 3 Sec. 2 power to exclude the Court from deciding poltiical questions. An amendment is not about occupying the Courts but handing them a new Constitution that will make plutocracy permanent. The solution is already worked out, without a potentially disastrous amendment. Read my diaries and go to the links cited.

    •  correction (0+ / 0-)

      The phrase "legally incompetent, or frauds" unfairly mischaracterizes those who aren't using the amendment to line their own pockets or give the professional left its own Roe v. Wade to entrench self-serving activism for the foreseeable future.  Also, it is unfair to characterize non-attorneys as legally incompetent. Most people understand the impact of Buckley v Valeo and its progeny, and want to do something, but have been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to consider the options under the Constitution.

      I could be wrong, but Occupy the Courts seems to be applying an OWS label to an advocacy position that is advanced inside the beltway by Common Cause and the Democratic Party. OTC starts with the proposition that since the elected branches are corrupt, then only the unelected judiciary is available to restore integrity. This avoids the obvious fact that Citizens United and four other similar cases since 2006, come form a Court that knows how to defend itself and how to control the elected branches. This is like going to Dracula to donate blood rather than with a silver spike directed into the heart.

      The avoidance of the elected branches, as a strategy, seems self -contradictory because Congress is necessary to an amendment. Those in favor of an amendment still contemplate transforming Congress as a condition precendent, but then why would there be any need to send an amendment to the states and to the Court? Yes, Congress has been destoyed almost as completely as was the Reichstag. But the only job is to restore Congress, and this is readily available. Congress is thoroughly capable of remedying the crisis on its own.

      To supplicate the unelected Court is the hallmark of judicial supremacism. Handing the Court an amendment would be disastrous, principally because the Court was never given such power to decide political questions by the framers. Congress was intended to judge its own elections under Art 1 Sec. 4 and 5. Now Congress must be required to follow the Constitution and stand up to the Court's usurpation, by implementing  Art. 3, Sec. 2 to strip the Court of jurisdiction to rule on most issues involving the conduct of elections. This is powerfully accomplished by unleashing the creativity of the amendment movement, OWS and anti-incumbent voters, in subjecting incumbents to a single-issue litmus test, much as would be required by an amendment, but here to the much simpler and more empowering task of passing comprehensive airtight legislation of the scale of civil rights legislation, that also removes court jurisdiction to review it. It is quite doable this year to secure a Congress pledged to pass the legislation, or go home without a job. The people (voters) when organized around a single issue, as was demonstrated with suffrage and civil rights, are the drivers of democracy. Judicial supremacism is inconsistent, and in conflict, with  the empowerment of democracy and the intent of the framers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site