So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this. such flailing.
Edna, you're the same dumbshit who listed amendments as examples of a living constitution. You're a moron. Nobody, not even the other libtards, thinks you know what you're talking about.
I'm well aware of the argument you're making (poorly). You're not the first to make it. You're not smart enough to concoct even poor arguments like this. As I have explained, there is no evidence that the framers intended for two or more people to lose their rights to free speech by going into business together. To the contrary, the founders valued business and freedom of association and assembly. Many of them were businessmen.
But I am enjoying your argument that "that's not what the founders intended," even if it is only your lackwit attemp at demonstrating hypocrisy.