Banning Neonicotinoid pesticides in the charter vs. stating our rights

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:08 PM, agnes@mcn.org> wrote:
EPA Confirms Activists' Longtime Claims: Neonicotinoid Pesticide Threatens Honeybees


Els asks, "How does this square with the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation that regulates all economic poisons? Can a charter county override that?"

My response:
That's a good question.  All the thousands of pounds of Roundup that is used on our school campuses has been approved by Chuck Morse, the County Ag Commissioner. 

That's what Community Rights is all about.  They say that we the People have the right to govern ourselves and protect our health and welfare.  Therefore, they advocate making local ordinances that contradict bad state or federal laws, and give the example of the women's suffrage movement. 

Personally, I think that even if the people vote in favor of something like prohibiting corporate constitutional rights within the county, a charter with such wording may not get ratified by the California Secretary of State. 

So if we want specific things like that in the charter, we may need to wait until we tack on an amendment in the future.  That can be a new project for Move to Amend in our county.  I'd vote for it.

Until then, we can clearly declare our right to protect our health, safety and environment within the charter.  That's what I call a Community Rights Charter.  I'd rather see global rights in the charter than specific items like neonicotinoid pesticides.  The chemical industries will just invent another pesticide even worse.  But a statement of our right to be free of chemical trespass, the right to health, safety, environmental protection, and the right to protect our agricultural lands and clean food supply, etc, will better serve us. 

Why can't we practice our 1st Amendment Free Speech rights at the post office?

Until the Patriot Act was passed, we used to be able to gather signatures for ballot measures and propositions in front of the post office.  I call that the citizen's 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of our grievances.  Others call it 1st Amendment Free Speech rights.  In 2012, when we were gathering signatures for Prop 37, the GMO labeling effort, and Measure F, the anti-corporate personhood rights effort, the Ukiah postmaster called the police to drive the petitioners away.  I asked Steve, one of the clerks there, who replied that citizens can't petition in front of the Post Office because it is private property. 

I have heard that the USPS had privatized some of their services, but I had thought that the Post Office was federal property.  In a democracy, the government is formed by the People to serve the People, and therefore, all Federal property belongs to all American citizens. 

I had also heard that the Patriot Act had a provision that prohibits ordinary citizens from getting within a certain distance of any diplomat.  Thomas Jefferson is probably turning over in his grave about that. But it shouldn't pertain to the Post Office since there are no diplomats inside. 

Even if the Post Office was private property, the Supreme Court 1980 Pruneyard Decision ruled that 1st Amendment rights are higher than private property in places that can be considered equivalent to the town square, like a modern shopping center.  I would pose that the Post Office is also equivalent to a town square.  So the fact that American citizens can't practice our 1st Amendment rights in our democratic nation in front of the federal post office perplexes and alarms me. 

Can anyone tell me why the Post Office is now off limits to citizens to practice democracy?  Will we have to get arrested gathering signatures in front of the Post Office and take the case to the Supreme Court? 

A Wall of Separation Between Corporation and State

The Tea Party advocates told me that the Constitution protects capitalism.  That perplexed me.  I have read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights several times and couldn't recall seeing anything about capitalism.  As a matter of fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution with me like a Christian will carry a Bible.  I can't say that I am a great Constitutional scholar, but I have a pretty good familiarity with it.  

I contended that I never saw anything about capitalism.  The closest thing I could imagine is the right to own private property.  They responded that this right IS capitalism, but the founding fathers just didn't have that word yet.  I again contended that capitalism means buying low and selling high, which is not at all the same as the right to own private property.  They disagreed, and affirmed that it is the same.  

So I looked up the word Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision for profit, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. 

The first real capitalists were the Dutch East India Company founded 1602.  They used capital for investment, but no one ever used the word Capitalism until it was coined in 1867 by Karl Marx in his book co-written with Engels, Das Capital.  The meaning Marx gave it was using capital (money) to buy commodities to sell for profit.  That seems pretty simple to me and confirmed my contention that capitalism is not the same as the right to own property.  There is no right in the Constitution to own property for profit.  Although the founding fathers assumed that shops and businesses would conduct commerce everywhere in the new Republic, they found no reason to guarantee the right to free enterprise or the right to make profits. 

That's why I believe we need to amend the Constitution to guarantee Constitutional rights only to human persons, as well as making election financing answerable only to the Public for which they will be elected.  These together will make a wall of Separation between Corporation and State.