Granting of legal personhood to corporations has proven to be disastrous. Like AI, corporations are a legal construct which threatens to destroy flesh and blood humans in favor of artificial persons.
Ironic how the 14th Amendment, intended to formally give human beings equal standing under the law, was turned into a vehicle for corporate dominance over all natural persons, which we suffer from to this day. Meanwhile, the "freed" slaves would continue to labor under Jim Crow for decades before any court or legislature would dare to act.
Ben Franklin said: We gave you a republic if you can keep it.
A republic is a government ruled by wise men, the elders, and wise men are men who have acquired property.
In the first elections any property owning man could vote, and that included free blacks
The first state to enfranchise all men was New Hampshire in 1792, which lifted property ownership.
free Black people had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807)[3] and Pennsylvania (1838).[4] New York State's Constitution of 1821 imposed a heavy property ownership requirement on Black voters (only), in effect disenfranchising almost all of them.
State by state after 1792, the property ownership requirement was lifted, but the enfranchisement of blacks and women took a constitutional amendment
BTW States have sovereign control over their citizens, including voting, marriage, age of consent, drugs, birth control, everything except those that were delegated to the federal government.
Neither congress with the SAVE act or the President with an executive order,can change that. An individual state can, and has, changed the requirements for voting.
The Constitution has no restriction on age as regards voting or anything, it was only the Supreme court usurping power that restricted voting to age 21,
in 1942 Georgia lowered the voting age to 18, but only for state and local elections.
The basis of SCOTUS power is myth, and consensus. Blue States, those with a trifecta at least, could and should choose to ignore SCOTUS, and there is nothing that SCOTUS could do in the face of a 22 state refusal to submit.
Granted that laws and constitutions have effect only to the extent to which people are willing to obey them and governments are willing to enforce them. But I think the 26th Amendment, allowing 18-year-olds to vote, is accepted. SCOTUS power is derived from the consent of the governed; so is that of Congress, and the Executive. But Republicans maintain that the government serves the presidency, forget checks and balances--a "unitary executive", aka dictatorship.
All amendments are accepted, because it isn't a law, it is the constitution.
Republicans champion the unitary executive, because at the moment Trump serves their purpose and is fulfilling their agenda. The moment the tide turns, there enthusiams will wane and reverse.
Excuse me for posting something not related to this article. But speaking of how far we've come, this just in.
Rubio: UFC fight on WH lawn is audacious, like when Kennedy announced we're going to put a man on the moon
I mean, I can only surmise that the apparent complete lack of teaching civics in the educational curriculum can account for this acceptance of the corruption and degradation in our government by our leaders. And the Democrats continue to flounder wasting their capital on trans and other far left issues. As I have said previously, can someone explain to me how allowing biological men to compete as women is somehow a "feminist stance? Ferchrisakes, do you have a daughter who swims, who runs track, who wants to excel in sports and now has to compete in this scenario?
Does giving hormones to man to become a woman suddenly change "her" lung capacity?
And ferchrisakes can someone explain to me how giving a fifteen-year-old child hormones to change their sex not outright abuse? As an immediate concern, apart from what you might feel about the morality of these issues, does making these issues prominent, (or having them MADE prominent by opposition) going to help win elections among more independent voters who are more mainstream by temperament?
And don't get me started by this craziness in Maine.
"If this be wrong, and upon me proved, then I never writ nor no man ever loved"
Granting of legal personhood to corporations has proven to be disastrous. Like AI, corporations are a legal construct which threatens to destroy flesh and blood humans in favor of artificial persons.
Ironic how the 14th Amendment, intended to formally give human beings equal standing under the law, was turned into a vehicle for corporate dominance over all natural persons, which we suffer from to this day. Meanwhile, the "freed" slaves would continue to labor under Jim Crow for decades before any court or legislature would dare to act.
Ben Franklin said: We gave you a republic if you can keep it.
A republic is a government ruled by wise men, the elders, and wise men are men who have acquired property.
In the first elections any property owning man could vote, and that included free blacks
The first state to enfranchise all men was New Hampshire in 1792, which lifted property ownership.
free Black people had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807)[3] and Pennsylvania (1838).[4] New York State's Constitution of 1821 imposed a heavy property ownership requirement on Black voters (only), in effect disenfranchising almost all of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=African%20Americans%20were%20fully%20enfranchised,the%20Civil%20War%20and%20the
State by state after 1792, the property ownership requirement was lifted, but the enfranchisement of blacks and women took a constitutional amendment
BTW States have sovereign control over their citizens, including voting, marriage, age of consent, drugs, birth control, everything except those that were delegated to the federal government.
Neither congress with the SAVE act or the President with an executive order,can change that. An individual state can, and has, changed the requirements for voting.
The Constitution has no restriction on age as regards voting or anything, it was only the Supreme court usurping power that restricted voting to age 21,
in 1942 Georgia lowered the voting age to 18, but only for state and local elections.
The basis of SCOTUS power is myth, and consensus. Blue States, those with a trifecta at least, could and should choose to ignore SCOTUS, and there is nothing that SCOTUS could do in the face of a 22 state refusal to submit.
Granted that laws and constitutions have effect only to the extent to which people are willing to obey them and governments are willing to enforce them. But I think the 26th Amendment, allowing 18-year-olds to vote, is accepted. SCOTUS power is derived from the consent of the governed; so is that of Congress, and the Executive. But Republicans maintain that the government serves the presidency, forget checks and balances--a "unitary executive", aka dictatorship.
All amendments are accepted, because it isn't a law, it is the constitution.
Republicans champion the unitary executive, because at the moment Trump serves their purpose and is fulfilling their agenda. The moment the tide turns, there enthusiams will wane and reverse.
Excuse me for posting something not related to this article. But speaking of how far we've come, this just in.
Rubio: UFC fight on WH lawn is audacious, like when Kennedy announced we're going to put a man on the moon
I mean, I can only surmise that the apparent complete lack of teaching civics in the educational curriculum can account for this acceptance of the corruption and degradation in our government by our leaders. And the Democrats continue to flounder wasting their capital on trans and other far left issues. As I have said previously, can someone explain to me how allowing biological men to compete as women is somehow a "feminist stance? Ferchrisakes, do you have a daughter who swims, who runs track, who wants to excel in sports and now has to compete in this scenario?
Does giving hormones to man to become a woman suddenly change "her" lung capacity?
And ferchrisakes can someone explain to me how giving a fifteen-year-old child hormones to change their sex not outright abuse? As an immediate concern, apart from what you might feel about the morality of these issues, does making these issues prominent, (or having them MADE prominent by opposition) going to help win elections among more independent voters who are more mainstream by temperament?
And don't get me started by this craziness in Maine.
"If this be wrong, and upon me proved, then I never writ nor no man ever loved"
A great find! Thanks for sharing....
We shall use it to overcome
Only natural persons can vote!