The word “only” isn’t found in the entire linked proposal. You put it in quotation marks. Mendacity does not absolve duplicity.
Ah, I see. I missed that change.
So you’re saying that under this amendment, non-humans (other than those specified in it) would have rights?
And you’re saying you support that idea?
The problem with the amendment is exactly the same - any court would seriously have to consider it as implying “only,” otherwise the language wouldnt’ be there at all. But I’d like to hear what you think. Do you support the speech rights of non-human groups like AARP, political parties, etc.? If so, then the argument that only people have rights is out the window, and that’s a fatal flaw in most arguments against Citizens United that “corporations aren’t people.” It doesn’t matter if they are people, does it?