3 ms·
Two things: 1) Google shouldn't have free speech since it is not a person. 2) The reason things get enshrined in the Constitution is to limit the ability of the
by virmundi 9y ago
Two things: 1) Google shouldn't have free speech since it is not a person. 2) The reason things get enshrined in the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to get rid of it. The UK's non-constitutional, constitutional monarchy is a rather problematic thing if the monarchy ever wanted to exercise itself.
- orf 9y ago1) Sure, but taken as a literal interpretation of the constitution they should, as they are a collection of people[1] 2) From a purely theoretical standpoint I agree, it does occupy an interesting place. If the monarchy ever did try to exercise any of its powers it possesses outside of delegation it would trigger a consisting crisis that would mean they would be immediately stripped of such powers. I mean, the Queen technically has all the powers of state and those are granted "at will" (air quotes) to the prime minister and other officials. If she ever woke up and decided to declare war, strip parliament of its authority or execute a few commoners what would happen? 1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood