[OneWingedShark]

The Constitution, from the statist point of view, is a charter of negative rights, severely limiting what the government can do and what it cannot do to you.

That is the correct view: the Constitution doesn't bind private entities or corporations -- only the government.

Correctly viewed however, it is a charter of personal rights, given to us by and which no government has the right to impair, limit or license.

This is incorrect: to take this view would deny a corporation the affirmation of a jury-trial in the case of crimes [or civil suits > $20] (i.e. the 6th and 7th Amendments, which are specifically binding on legal process, not on people).

[L,TOWM]

Frankly, I believe one of the things that has contributed to the situation we are in now is in the extension of the 4th, 5th, 7th, and 14th amendment rights to corporations, in addition to the free speech provisions in the 1st. I would like to see a system in which the employees and directors of a corporation retain their rights as individual persons, but that corporations are viewed as and treated much differently.

[cookcounty]

“Negative rights”

Talk about prejudicial terminology!

The underlying concept is that government prerogatives should be unlimited.