The US constituion was designed to guarantee freedom from religion...

The Constitution does NOT mention any specific forms of communication. It uses vague terms "speech" and "expression" to refer to private communication and "press" to refer to any form of journalistic expression.

 

The Air Force is an Army and has already been described as such by the Supreme Court in 1972.

 

Source?

 

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/1/case.html

 

Ooooooohhhhhh snap.

I guess the strict interpretist model simply does not hold up to judicial review eh?

 

I guess it is Constitutional then, but to me that just sounds like the SC making a decision because they knew that Congress is too lazy as to actually follow Constitution to the letter.

 

Nope.

I take you love how the SC turned corporations into people? How's that for your non-strict interpretation?

 

What do you have against free speech? Corporations have been treated as individuals for longer than the Citizens decision.

 

The only things that should be treated as people are the ones with pulses.

 

You may be correct. SCOTUS does not always rule how most people think they should.

 

So what Corporation can speak?

 

Why would I favor giving corporations the rights of the people?

What does this have to do with an air force in a modern era?

 

None. PEOPLE can speak.

If Corporations are people then they should have all the responsibilities of people as well as the rights. Meaning we should be able to draft them during a time of war or send them to prison (IE seize control of them and force them to work for the state) for wrongdoing.

 

It's another example of an extra-Constitutional power given via judicial review.

I personally think we need a series of Constitutional Amendments (or better yet, a whole new Constitution) to clarify the powers of the Judicial Branch. They should have the power to force Congress to undertake changes to the law or Constitution, not simply make new rights or laws by fiat.

 

As far as the law of this country is concerned, it is the "end all", and if you think something is a "necessary advancement" that the Constitution ought to accommodate, then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. If it's as "necessary" as you claim it is, then you shouldn't have any problem convincing society that you're right.

 

I believe that contraception is something you buy.

 

Modern era? A corporation is a faction as Madison would have described it. Once again ignorance is bliss on this forum. How we deal with faction and liberty was as much an issue then as it is now. The founders came down on the side of liberty.

 

The framers were intelligent enough to write a document that spans time. The fact that you missed that, simply means that you don't understand the importance of limitations, powers, and rights the constitution offers. Only in your warped perception is the constitution inadequate. Luckily for your argument, its inadequate due to its age because of your failure to comprehend it.

 

When the constitution was written, the idea of a vehicle that moved on it's own and was fueled by burning a oil based liquid would have been viewed as completely impossible. THey would have never though of adding parts to the document to handle air pollution and other issues that we face now.

 

Corporate personhood has been recognized since 1819. That is why Obama was wrong. You would think he would know this being a "Constitutional Scholar". Bwahahahahaha!

 

Which of course has nothing to do with Constitutional protections. "The People" have not changed.

 

So what part of the constitution does that make invalid.

Cars moving down the road burning fuels proves which portion of the constitution inadequate.

Site specific section please.

 

So you pay for coitus interruptus?

 

Only if you are caught in the act by a spouse.

 

My point is that, if corporations are people, they should have to do all the things that normal citizens do.......They should have all the same responsibility.