The Fifth Amendment to the current Constitution of the United States of America includes a protection of property rights. This has become used as a corporate tool to prevent regulation under eminent domain action by the government. In other words, for any government (in particular, local government) to regulate a corporation by regulation may result in the loss of future profit potential. For example, it wasn't until the population came to understand and through their elected representatives at the Federal level began to provide the support for regulation of the tobacco industry that the right of 'eminent domain' (meaning the health and well-being of the American public) was sufficient to overturn the potential for future profit (this, however, has NOT applied to offshore marketing of tobacco, and the tobacco industry is still doing relatively well keeping the rest of the world in thrall.) The balancing of property rights vs public rights (as expressed in 'eminent domain') is a necessary part of a Constitution. As a corporate farmer (even if a small farmer, but incorporated), one can object to a high-voltage transmission line as limiting profit potential. The argument that the oil industry makes for pipelines like the Keystone Pipeline is that the 'profit' of the world (and esp. their industry) in gaining access to 'energy' is more important than the rights of the Sioux people. The rights of people to refuse to be vaccinated (the right to their own bodies) must be balanced with the right of the public to be protected from COVID infection. If we were to use the thinking of indigenous peoples (and, by the way, Christians such as those who wrote an old document called the Heidelberg Catechism [cf. specifically Q&A 1]), we humans have NO property rights, since all is a gift of the Great Spirit (or in the case of the Catechism, 'my faithful Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ). But this obviously did not stop indigenous tribes from waging war on each other, since in their view, as expressed in the meaning of the native term for Navajo, 'D'ine', THEY were the only people (or, as with white Europeans, with "Manifest Destiny".) And so whole nations such as the Sioux moved westward as they were pressed by white European/American expansionism, moving onto the 'lands of others'. And even today we make it a habit of 'acknowledging' on whose lands we find ourselves (I, in Dubuque, IA, live on Kickapoo, Sac and Fox [to use the anglicized versions] land, which ACTUALLY is land on which they themselves found themselves, but which they did not own {ownership being in the hands of the Great Spirit]). SO, in summary (WAY TOO LATE!) this new People's Constitution will have to weave its way through what is both a spiritual, legal, emotional and identity morass to delineate how 'rights' are balanced and 'owned'. One thing that 1865 should have taught us: no one may own anyone else, and groups of us (corporations) may not own anyone else (BTW, this includes prisoners for cause, who should be paid a living wage for the work they do -- we do not 'teach' them anything about the value of property by depriving them of that right.)

Preamble : The Voter Bill of Rights is established to protect the necessary rights of the Citizens in a representative democracy; to fair and equal voting, to primarily fund political campaigns to assure representation of the voter, to representation undistorted by spending outside of political campaigns and parties, and to have readily available a public record of the significant funding sources of the campaigns of candidates for elected office, elected representatives, political parties and any other groups and organizations established in full or in part to advocate for, or against, candidates, elected representatives or political parties: