Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment to the constitution. So the amendment really has to be pretty darn important and relevant to a huge number of people in order to be adopted. I just read that there have been around 10,000 attempts thorughout the years and most all of them failed. They tend to be things like The Marriage Protection Amendment which aims to make the legal definition of marriage the union of one man and one women. The last amendment, the 27th Amendment was actually just ratified in 1992. You won't believe the critical issue it deals with.
The 27th Amendment: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
This amendment to the United States Constitution provides that any change in the salary of members of United States Congress may only take effect after the next general election. Sometimes called the "Congressional Compensation Amendment of 1789", the "Congressional Pay Amendment", and the "Madison Amendment", it was intended to serve as a restraint on the power of Congress to set its own salary—an obvious potential for conflict-of-interest.
This amendment was proposed way back in 1789 and it took our glorious leaders till 1992 to consent. So I ask you, is the last amendment that was ratified as important as the one this project is proposing? And besides, this project really isn't proposing creating a totally new amendment. It's simply proposing an amendment that clarifys an existing amendment that desperately needs to be clarified. Right now corporations are allowed to get away with massive fraud and corruption beyond belief simply because they've used their wealth and power to distort the meaning of who "All Persons" refers to in the 14th Amendment. Any honest person clearly understands it refers to living, breathing human beings. A corporation is not a person. You will never see and actual physical, bodily person that is a corporation. It's an absurd notion on it's face. As the cartoon on the home page depicts, slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.
So no, it's not hard to amend the constitution in this case because we are not proposing a new amendment. We are just proposing an amendment that clarifies and existing one. Doing this will be challenging though. Corporations will no doubt rally all their wealth and lawyerly minions to wage war against an amendment like this. This is to be expected. But is that a good reason not to rally the effort required to demand our representatives do OUR WILL rather than corporate will? If we don't take a serious stand at some point, we may as well just stop whining about the corporate tyranny that is on our doorsteps and just let them have it all.
If you really want to stop what's happening, we have to close the legal loophole they have been using. It's really that simple. So as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how challenging amending the Constitution is. It has to be done if you want to REALLY turn things around.