Obviously (I'm) one ignorant twit with zero 'concept' of how our government is designed to work, REALLY? OK, obviously you are not interested in discussion, you want to turn this into a battle. That's fine with me smart ass.
SO...Let's start with some 'concepts'
----------------------------------------------------------
'Concept' - Government, what is it?
...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
Translation for smart asses: the WILL of the PEOPLE.
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to jump ahead and ASSume anything so maybe we need to make sure no 'concept' is overlooked for smart asses like you.
'Concept' -PEOPLE - plural for PERSON (Homo sapiens) - a human being. A living, breathing entity that is mortal.
----------------------------------------------------------
'Concept' - activist judges legislating from the bench
Citizens United vs. FEC WAS activist judges legislating from the bench using the Chief Justices OWN 'concept' of jurisprudence in sworn testimony before Congress:
In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."
Roberts hasn't stood by his own doctrine. Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent in the case properly pointed out that Citizens United case was not properly brought before the Supreme Court. "This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court," Stevens said of the process. "Our colleagues' suggestion that 'we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell," ante, at 1,
would be more accurate if rephrased to state that 'we have asked ourselves' to reconsider those cases."
"Justice Stevens makes the point that Roberts decided a case that wasn't even before the Court, and
invited the issue before the Court."
Bottom line: activist judges legislating from the bench against the will of the people
----------------------------------------------------------
NOW smart ass, I have a really revolutionary 'concept' - let's take a LOOK at how the authors of the very 'constitution' you claim to defend and have special understanding of ACTUALLY RAN government when they were living, breathing 'PEOPLE' (see previously defined 'concept'). Let's LOOK at how our founding fathers treated corporations; how they defined their role, how they regulated them and how they place limitations on the political rights of corporations. Would THAT be a fair litmus test of how our government is designed to work?
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "
corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.
So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the
people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
They were prohibited from any part of the political process.
Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation.
In order to receive the profit-making
privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good.
When corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.
Next...
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
i've explained it to you in multiple ways, i've used exact titles that support what i say from the whitehouse website, explained to about the policies and you still don't get it...were you born stupid or do you work at it? 
