Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

RAM V2.png

The album features collaborations with Giorgio Moroder, Tatsuro Yamashita, Prince, Panda Bear, Mariya Takeuchi,
Julian Casablancas, David Bowie, Kool and the Gang, Todd Edwardss, DJ Falcon, Chilly Gonzales, Nile Rodgers, Paul Williams,
Fat Larry's Band, Nathan East, Pharrel Williams, Phil Collins, Pet Shop Boys, Kraftwerk, and Earth, Wind & Fire.
 
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
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".
 
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".
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.

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
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Also, "befitting" is a bit unclear, I would use "proportional" instead.
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.
What's the composition of congress in this timeline, must be interesting.
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.
To answer your question, the House is still dominated by the Democrats and Republicans, but with enough minor-party representation (primarily in the form of the Libertarian, Green, and Reform parties) thanks to the Majority Amendment to give it a "partisan diversity" somewhere between OTL's Australian and Canadian parliaments. The two-party system is even stronger in the Senate, but both parties are still denied a majority due to a smattering of independent members.
 
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.
D'Oh!!! This is just proof I shouldn't work on stuff past midnight

~•~

A Path Less Travelled: Part II, Roosevelt Redeemed
The Republicans & Democrats Have Rejected Progressivism

1916.png

Part I. 1912 US presidential election
 
A Path Less Travelled: Part II, Roosevelt Redeemed
The Republicans & Democrats Have Rejected
...Okay, I do find the idea of Teddy winning NC and TN (and generally winning an outright landslide) while losing NY a little strange, but okay.

Have the Progressives made some inroads into the South?
 
Top