SNIP
Liking this timeline, although I always thought Vandenburg was to the GOP's right.
As a minor nitpick, he probably shouldn't be dual-jobbing as a senator for his whole term.
SNIP
What do you mean hung?You know, I've seen many 1912 boxes, but I can't remember any hung 1912 boxes. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying I don't remember any.
The second part of the 32nd has me curious. Or just explain that one as a whole, as I suspect the two clauses are connected.
I haven't written out the text of the amendments (yet), but the headcanon is that the 32nd is a slightly revised version of the We the People amendment. It doesn't actually abolish the doctrine of corporate personhood, saying instead that corporations are not persons but entities-they still have the ability to be sued and contracted with but there's now a finer line (established by federal law) between the privileges of the people and the privileges of corporations.An amendment abolishing "corporate personhood" would have to be worded extremely specifically and extremely narrowly, because outlawing the concept entirely would cause all sorts of issues. Traditionally, corporate personhood is the idea that corporations are bound by contracts or liable for damages and not, say, the CEO or shareholders. You can imagine how getting rid of that would upend business.
Where none of the candidates win a majority of the electoral votes, I assume.What do you mean hung?
You know, I've seen many 1912 boxes, but I can't remember any hung 1912 boxes. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying I don't remember any.
What do you mean hung?
Apologies for nitpicking, but shouldn't the dates of his Presidency be March 4, 1933 - March 4, 1937? Also, shouldn't his Senate term end when he's elected President? You still have him serving as Senator into 1936.
If that's the case, it's unlikely that Wikipedia would describe the ammendment as "abolishing corporate personhood", more likely, something like "regulates fundraising and removes the corporate exemption".I haven't written out the text of the amendments (yet), but the headcanon is that the 32nd is a slightly revised version of the We the People amendment. It doesn't actually abolish the doctrine of corporate personhood, saying instead that corporations are not persons but entities-they still have the ability to be sued and contracted with but there's now a finer line (established by federal law) between the privileges of the people and the privileges of corporations.
Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2. Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person’s money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local governments shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Section 3. Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
It technically did abolish corporate personhood, and that's what the amendment would become widely known for in the runup to its ratification-even if the idea of corporations as singular entities remained.If that's the case, it's unlikely that Wikipedia would describe the amendment as "abolishing corporate personhood", more likely, something like "regulates fundraising and removes the corporate exemption".
Can't help but notice that the electoral vote map says that the states in blue were won by Wilson / Marshall, but his VP in that TL is Ollie James. And that the home states of Taft and Wilson are switched.Pretty much what @HorizonFalling said. Kinda like this:
A Path Less Travelled: Or, if Wilson Tanked, Taft Surged, & Roosevelt Solidified
How Nicholas Butler Became President
I don't know what the social center of your world is, but I would be inclined to say that the tone sounds a bit slanted. Wikipedia is always very carefull to maintain a "neutral tone". Even if that's what its advocates are saying and what much of the public thinks, it would likely be something more like "establishes the government's ability to regulate corporations, and guarantees equal access to the political process, regardless of wealth" since that also seems to be a more accurate summary of the ammednment. Also, "befitting" is a bit unclear, I would use "proportional" instead. What's the composition of congress in this timeline, must be interesting.It technically did abolish corporate personhood, and that's what the amendment would become widely known for in the runup to its ratification-even if the idea of corporations as singular entities remained.
Ergh. There was a reason I chose befitting instead of proportional, and I can't remember what it was. If I had to guess I picked it because the populations of the four island territories are so small that they wouldn't even get a representative if the seats were allocated proportionately. But that's a fair point.Also, "befitting" is a bit unclear, I would use "proportional" instead.
Well, I should say that this list of amendments is the ultimate result of a wikibox I posted some time ago where Ford defeats Carter despite losing the popular vote. Because of that, the Third Way branch of the Democratic Party never formed and the party is much more comfortable with progressive politics-and Reagan's relegation to the dustbin of history means that the Republican shift rightward was stalled and the party today is very much "liberal-conservative." And the hardline partisanship we see today is curbed hard.What's the composition of congress in this timeline, must be interesting.
Can't help but notice that the electoral vote map says that the states in blue were won by Wilson / Marshall, but his VP in that TL is Ollie James. And that the home states of Taft and Wilson are switched.
An incumbent POTUS from New York loses his home state?D'Oh!!! This is just proof I shouldn't work on stuff past midnight
~•~
A Path Less Travelled: Part II, Roosevelt RedeemedPart I. 1912 US presidential election
The Republicans & Democrats Have Rejected Progressivism
View attachment 590952
Murray Butler became president in 1912 in this not Roosevelt.An incumbent POTUS from New York loses his home state?
A Path Less Travelled: Part II, Roosevelt Redeemed
The Republicans & Democrats Have Rejected