@joe80dman Don't get distracted--it is the content of the amendment that matters, not the number. There are probably several constitutional amendments that are floating around, and if any one of them becomes law it will be the "28th Amendment."
.
What we really need to focus on is getting popular support for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics--or as others have put it, "Separate Corp and State"
@wbaltzley : I would be in full support of an Amendment such as this. How the SC could make corporations as people baffles me. There can be no doubt corporate lobby money swayed the Court, and the Court should never be swayed by gratuities. The thought of it should sound the alarm bells.
Wasn't this already passed in 1913 as Amendment XVII? Mr. Feingold is a bit behind on the paperwork.
port2483 1 year ago
ME too. wtf?
nellieeeeee 2 years ago
I thought the proposed 28th Amendment was to separate Corporations from governments? Is this a diversion?
joe80dman 2 years ago
@joe80dman Don't get distracted--it is the content of the amendment that matters, not the number. There are probably several constitutional amendments that are floating around, and if any one of them becomes law it will be the "28th Amendment."
.
What we really need to focus on is getting popular support for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics--or as others have put it, "Separate Corp and State"
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley : I would be in full support of an Amendment such as this. How the SC could make corporations as people baffles me. There can be no doubt corporate lobby money swayed the Court, and the Court should never be swayed by gratuities. The thought of it should sound the alarm bells.
joe80dman 1 year ago
Feingold ftw.
cookimonstizzle 2 years ago 3