Macias 1

Sophia Macias
Mrs.Niles
AP English Language P.3
6 September 2016
Word count: 455
The Times Editorial Board. "Prop 59: Don't Amend the Constitution over Citizens United." Los
Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Rhetorical Revealer
Pathos:
But the measure also suggests that a constitutional amendment would make clear that
corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.
The editorial board uses this statement as an emotional approach to say this is a powerful
statement to be said as an amendment and in a proposition. Its shows that people who own a
company would not have a free speech such as if they are asked of a search through their
place of business if they were being sued. This truly gives an even playing board if any cases
are made against them could be thoroughly searched and not held back because of the
company saying they cant.
We share the frustration over Citizens United (the decision) and Citizens United (the
metaphor for the outsize role of money in politics).

Macias 2

Would corporations lose only free-speech rights or other rights as well, such as the right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures at their places of business or to due process of law
if they were sued?
This statement shows the readers that maybe taking away a companys free speech away may be
the for the best in the case there is a statement against them and we, as the people, should have
the right to search their files or place of business. This connects with the working class of people
who understand and want to have the right to search if ever in the situation if something happens
to them. The editorial board truly shows they can and do know both sides of this situation and
know that it is better for the people.
Logical:
In a 2015 Bloomberg poll, 78% of respondents said that it should be overturned.
The proposition that the editorial board speaks of that should be overturned such as said by the
poll is a decision that says that corporations have the 1 st amendment right to spend an unlimited
amount of money to influence elections. This shows that coporations always seem to have an
upper hand with the lower classes and shows that the editorial board sees and knows that 75% of
people agree that the companies have too much free will which does not always turn out well for
them the underclass men.
Fair enough, but if that statement is: Amend the Constitution; details to follow, we dont think
its a message worth sending.
President Obama denounced it in a State of the Union address with several justices sitting in
attendance.