Congress can give corporations personhood rights to conduct business and restrict their ability to interfere in politics if my amendment is passed. What part do you have a problem with? Why should corporations have the same political rights as an American citizen? Are they citizens?
You are babbling nonsense here. Or attempting to erect a strawman. Neither is interesting. If Congress thought they could give themselves such power over the Supreme Court, they would. Watch and see them NOT do so, because they are not collectively ignorant enough to think they could.
Such an amendment would be unconstitutionally vague on its face, and therefore be unenforceable anyway.
How can an amendment to the constitution be "unconstitutionally vague"? If something is in the constitution it can't be "unconstitutional".
This is simplistic nonsense. We have a living constitution and the ultimate arbitrator of disputes is the Supreme Court. Congress cannot place any limit on the subjects they review. Hence; if locked in battle, the Supreme Court is, well, Supreme
There is little question that parts of the current constitution are vague... this part for example.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There wasn't anything vague about that amendment when it was written, nor for nearly a century after that. Consider this: In theory, an amendment could be passed instituting anti-miscegenation laws across the country (Remember, Congress pays no heed to stare decisis
, meaning unlike the courts, it can flip-flop at will), but such an absurd law would never pass muster with the Supremes, even if it could pass both houses by 2/3 and get ratified by 3/4 the states (again, when pigs fly.)
parados wrote: Quote:
The idea of revisiting mountains of case law with an insistence that no opinion involving a natural person should be interpreted to include a “corporate person” is really pretty silly.
Who said anything about needing to revisit case law? Congress can decide to grant whatever they want to corporations. What case law are you specifically referring to where corporations are granted constitutional rights?
This would be obvious to you if you had a clue what you were talking about. Even if your vague nonsensical "amendment" were to be approved and ratified (when pigs fly), it would be completely unenforceable
. Just how do you suppose you'd go about trying to stop Justices from considering corporate personhood when weighing previous decisions, whether they involved actual persons or juristic persons? And again; why would you want to?
(<-- How many times are you going to duck this question?)
The tag “Special Interest Groups” seems to have taken on an evil definition. This too is silly. Some special interests aren’t in our best interest, some are. Opinions vary over which are which. Let’s take the NAACP for instance. Without it, Brown v. Board may never have taken place. Is that an evil Special Interest Group? Of course not. When they bring legal action, realize, they are acting as a corporate person… and this isn’t an option you’d likely want to see taken away. Now put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s say some small racist community in Alabama was denying business permits for the NAACP to set up shop there. Would you want them to not be able to bring action under the 14th Amendment? I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.