Vermont lawmakers draft amendment to stop corporations from being considered 'people'

[ktlight]

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are essentially the same as people, and are thus free under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to participate in "electioneering communications," or political advertising and contribution campaigns. But lawmakers from the state of Vermont have put forth a resolution that, if passed, will amend the U.S. Constitution to state that only human beings are persons guaranteed constitutional protections.

source
http://www.naturalnews.com/032100_Vermont_corporations.html

[Lord Sidious]

I am unsure of how they think a state can amend a ruling of the supreme court and federal statutes, but it is a good start.
To have a conversation put up is better than nothing.
I find some of the quote from the judge amusing.

[161803398]

The Judges in the U.S. are elected also, are they not. I understood that if you want to win your case in America you pack the courtroom with campaign contributors.

[Humble Janitor]

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are essentially the same as people, and are thus free under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to participate in "electioneering communications," or political advertising and contribution campaigns. But lawmakers from the state of Vermont have put forth a resolution that, if passed, will amend the U.S. Constitution to state that only human beings are persons guaranteed constitutional protections.

source
http://www.naturalnews.com/032100_Vermont_corporations.html

Wow. I hadn't personally heard of this.

I do know that we're trying to enact single-payer health care.

I certainly hope this amendment passes. All it needs is for Bernie and other freedom-loving congressmen/senators to latch onto it.

[Lord Sidious]

The problem with the judges comments are that he was the dissenting judge, so the other two went against him.
His remarks would be considered obiter dicta and not ratio dedidendii.
Obiter dicta is merely comments, whereas ratio is reasons for the decision and is binding.

[Mad Hatter]

Surely this is only of concern if you were a signatory to the original contract...?....