All it would take is amending the treason statute to include willfully and reasonably knowing (and doing anyway) enacting legislation that is unconstitutional.
As an added benefit, it would make it a LOT more hazardous for lawyers to run for public office, since they would not be able to claim a lack of knowledge. This would likely lead to much more easily understandable laws.
Re: 'Criminals don't deserve the protection of the law'
It gets even more hypocritical when you consider that in most states, official misconduct is also a crime.
Then on the federal level, a public official (such as a police officer, though certainly not limited to police) who uses their official authority (color of law) to violate any statutory, civil or constitutional right has committed a federal crime -- and if two or more of them work together to do so (say, an officer and his partner) it's automatically a felony, for BOTH of them.
If they feel they don't have to treat accused suspects well because criminals don't deserve rights, then act on that belief, they themselves become criminals -- equally undeserving of rights!
Look on the bright side though. If a corporation has the same sort of sovereignty a nation does, then they have the bad with the good.
How many corporations have B-52s? How many could withstand a bombing raid on their HQ?
The Geneva Conventions define what a lawful combatant is, and corporations count as civilians at the moment. But once they are sovereign entities, a lawful combatant could legitimately wage war against them, as they would no longer be considered civilian, any more than a government official is.
Yeah, but it would be EXTREMELY hard to construe governmental sovereignty -- functioning exactly as the constitution defines it -- as somehow denying a citizen their rights under the constitution or as insurrection against the government.
It doesn't take much to be a multinational corporation. Just file the paperwork somewhere outside US borders, pay the fees...and then you too can be immune to US law just by convincing an ISDS tribunal that you should be.
Yeah, the US is going to sign TPP -- but the authority to ratify it is in the hands of Congress who cannot override the Constitution without passing a Constitutional amendment AND getting enough of the states to ratify it.
Without a Constitutional amendment, the federal law created by the treaty would be unconstitutional, and therefore null and void under US law.
We may wind up the subject of trade embargoes and sanctions, but the fact remains that some things are simply not possible under our laws, regardless of what foreign laws say.