GIVE Act Amendment
 

Well the GIVE act passed the house and senate. Here is an amendment that was tacked on:

Is this not a direct assault on the first amendment? CHANGE is coming and it's not for the better.

Sadly, this is only a small fraction of the bill. I haven't had a chance to go through the GIVE act, but it smells like indentured servitude to me.

No, it is not a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right of the people to freedom of speech/expression/press, etc. In other words, individual people can still speak out about legislation, petitions, boycotts, etc. Corporations are not people, and should not have constitutional rights.

(edit)

Having now read the definitions, here's my amendment to the amendment discussion:

The bill, as amended, says "If you come to the government and get a handout, you agree to not do this stuff."

That, too, is fine. If your community service organization wants to influence legislation or go unionbusting, then don't ask the government for money.

I've heard that this 'act' implies some sort of forced service. I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, right?

I havent read the full bill, but as I understand it, it mostly expands the existing National and Community Service Act... including restoring and expanding funding (that was cut in recent years) to support community service and volunteerism.

I think it might have a provision to undertake a "study" on the merits and practicality of mandatory national service...and thats what has some up in arms.

Thanks, dc. That's what I came here to post. It does have a study provision, which means....nothing.

then i guess if that ever becomes serious, i'll worry about it then.

True. But I find the notion of a Labor Draft in this country to be dispicable, and the fact that these people are even considering such a thing makes the hairs on the back of my neck rise.

Well, as strongly as you are about the 2nd amendment, I think you would realize that what they talk about usually has a way of becoming law. Considering the amendment passed with a unrecorded vote, I would be very concered. Plus this massive bill passed under the fog of the economic crisis with almost no coverage. I don't even think it was possible for members of congress to read it in time to vote.

The 'organizations' in the amendment from what I've been reading refers to the people in these corps. It seems the bill is talking about about 1 in 100 to 1 in 50 people in America being involved in them. So this group wouldn't be allowed to "influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing."

With the economy going the way it is and the mandatting of teaching about these 'corps' groups in schools, it's going to be a very convenient thing for youngsters to join. If not required after the study is completed.

No, it doesn't refer to the people in these corps. It refers to the organizations themselves. And would anyone disagree that publicly funded organizations dedicated solely to organizing volunteer efforts should remain apolitical?

Over the last 16 years, I've learned to accept that this government has no interest or concern in protecting the rights of American citizens, only it's core group of supporters. Unrecorded votes are those members ways of protecting their collective asses. They can sit on capitol hill and write, vote on, and pass any law they want to. It eventually will not matter. Sooner or later, the people of this country will have had enough.