Why Don't Our Schools Appropriately Teach the Constitution?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Pervius

 

and in 1886 the Supreme Court declared Corporations (ie United States) equal to an individual and deserving all benefits and protections as provided in the Constitution. source
until this changes, nothing does.
if the US is going to move beyond this current dilemma and disaster we call government, Constitutional amendments are where the focus should be aimed ... well, after removal of the Great Usurper !!!

It had to have been made because 'person' has two possible attributes. An artificial person (corporation) and a natural person (A man[gender neutral]). And artificial persons existed before 1886...The supreme court is there to 'iron out' certain areas of jurisprudence that may be 'interpreted' incorrectly.

The problem isn't external, its internal. Its how we decide to react with the external world, instead of the external world reacting with us.

Originally posted by lawlb0t

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Pervius

 

and in 1886 the Supreme Court declared Corporations (ie United States) equal to an individual and deserving all benefits and protections as provided in the Constitution. source
until this changes, nothing does.
if the US is going to move beyond this current dilemma and disaster we call government, Constitutional amendments are where the focus should be aimed ... well, after removal of the Great Usurper !!!

It had to have been made because 'person' has two possible attributes. An artificial person (corporation) and a natural person (A man[gender neutral]). And artificial persons existed before 1886...The supreme court is there to 'iron out' certain areas of jurisprudence that may be 'interpreted' incorrectly.

The problem isn't external, its internal. Its how we decide to react with the external world, instead of the external world reacting with us.

edit on 25-8-2011 by lawlb0t because: (no reason given)

thanks for the contribution but i respectfully disagree.
No business, corporation or collective represent, reflect or demonstrate the qualities inherent to any natural Person, in any way.
A majority is a majority, it is Not representative of the whole (person or collective), not ever.

just because a commercial, political or industrial declaration infers such, doesn't make it so.
A person is a person is a person, not an artificial representative, corporation, collective or group.

you say 'artificial persons' existed before 1886 and i have to ask, how and where?
you don't indicate if that is a US position, an foreign position or a new position created by need or demand.

The Supreme Court has no authority to "interpret" laws, they enforce the Constitutionality of them, as they are written, period.

Legislators create laws, attorneys interpret them and the SC decide which may or may not be Constitutionally correct ... the law as created or the law as interpreted.

No offense intended with this statement, but i am a firm believer that the "imposters / artificial persons" should be eliminated from society as a whole.
They possess no power or independent knowledge, they contribute nothing to the whole of any natural person, they inhibit most natural inclinations and they devolve every society in which they present as a recognized participant. need examples?

The problem has ALWAYS been external ... it is solely the external force manipulating the internal force (or natural response) of a natural person.

To avoid the traps of the external world, quit volunteering to participate.
An external force is granted authority solely by the internal force that desires it.
when you acquiesce your natural force (internal), all that is left is an external one.