Bullshit Amendment to constitution proposed by trickery [Corporation related]

[Dig]

Not true. This is important, supremely important for the welfare of the people, it definitelly SHOULD take an ammendment. It would not be necessary but I would consider it to be good to use the form of an ammendment.

You do realize you contradicted yourself in the last two sentences, right?

"It definitely SHOULD take an ammendment (sic)"

v.

"It would not be necessary but I would consider it to be good use"

[Michal Ptacnik]

Should, as in, it would be the best way. It is not necessary, e.g. not required for the law to be in force (since the derrogated norm has the form of (presumably) a statute, not of a constitutional ammendment), but to make sure the new norm has the necessary status amongst the people, the lawyers, judges, etc., and to make sure that they can not get rid of it by a mere statute, it should be an ammendment.

"Legal persons are not equal to natural persons. Their rights are not protected under the constitution."

and I would add "Legal persons have to expire in ten years" - as they used to in Old America.

[Dig]

Should, as in, it would be the best way. It is not necessary, e.g. not required for the law to be in force (since the derrogated norm has the form of (presumably) a statute, not of a constitutional ammendment), but to make sure the new norm has the necessary status amongst the people, the lawyers, judges, etc., and to make sure that they can not get rid of it by a mere statute, it should be an ammendment.

So it is not necessary, but preferable. Are there any risks in amending the constitution? It has been argued that amendments to the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment and the 16th amendment) have contradicted the essense of the constitution and have been manipulated by foreign banking interests in order to usurp power from the people and the states. This argument has some merit and the power of the New World Order at the time was limited compared to today. So, wouldn't the risks to opening up the constitution to further perversion, given the New World Order's current control over our daily lives, outweigh the perceived benefit?

"Legal persons are not equal to natural persons. Their rights are not protected under the constitution."

and I would add "Legal persons have to expire in ten years" - as they used to in Old America.

I would rather see that there is no such thing as any "person" other than a human being. Giving corporations the power of personhood is dehumanizing, whether it be legal or natural.

[Michal Ptacnik]

Well, I was thinking of writing exactly that but I thought that I have already been revolutionary enough for this tread. But yes. No personhood other than the human being.

[MonkeyPuppet]

So it is not necessary, but preferable. Are there any risks in amending the constitution? It has been argued that amendments to the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment and the 16th amendment) have contradicted the essence of the constitution and have been manipulated by foreign banking interests in order to usurp power from the people and the states. This argument has some merit and the power of the New World Order at the time was limited compared to today. So, wouldn't the risks to opening up the constitution to further perversion, given the New World Order's current control over our daily lives, outweigh the perceived benefit?

Yes.  This point is extremely important.  That's why I'm hoping the introduction of such an amendment is merely to garner attention to the subject.  The more the People pay attention and the more the few honest Representatives (at all levels) see that this issue is important, civil discourse can iron out the proper methods for achieving the preferred goal.  We should be mindful that should such discourse enter the news cycle, it will be distorted and we must be prepared to counter.

I would rather see that there is no such thing as any "person" other than a human being. Giving corporations the power of personhood is dehumanizing, whether it be legal or natural.

This was the sentiment I took away from the OP.  Perhaps I was a bit too trusting of the intention, but the sentiment is there.