Corporations Aren't People Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only motivation for doing this in real life, is as I understand it, the motivation regarding corporations and campaign finances.

Even in real life the unintended consequences of dealing with such through that means is excessive and unwise, here, where there is no campaign financing at all for obvious structural reasons, it is doubly so even more unwise and most of all, unnecessary.

I also of the understanding that by removing corporate personhood, you also reduce or perhaps even remove completely corporate liability in various tort cases, which I highly doubt is a desired objective. Also, in the way this is worded, any media company organized as a corporation would lose its freedom of the speech and press, any company could be seized without just compensation, troops could be forceibly housed on said company's property and discrimation by the gov't with regards to various minority owned businesses, will cease to be unconstitutional.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If campaign finance is the problem, why throw the baby out iwth the bath water? From my best understanding, and no offense to those who are on board with it here, is that they are targetting corporate personhood because it sounds weird and is underlying the campaign finance decisions. If campaign finance is the problem, then compose an amendment strictly on the cmapaign finance issue. If there are other other issues that this doctrine has caused, name them?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Positively.

People eat, sleep, bleed, reproduce, love, have emotions, etc. Corporations do not do that. People are alive. Corporations are very much not.

Should churches be considered as people? How about football teams? Of course not. Neither should corporations.

I strongly suggest you read the comments in this thread, particularly those of bedstuy.

Should churches be considered as people? How about football teams? Of course not. Neither should corporations.

Erm, they are. You can sue the person of the Roman Catholic Church, or Real Madrid.

Then we're talking about a misuse of the term "personhood." At least, I disagree that that is the term that should be used, especially if it's to be used to gut campaign finance reform.

This is about law not biology. Legal personhood allows entities involving many people to act as one under the law. It's a critical concept so that contractual protection is maintained with entities made of many people. It's also important so that individuals acting as an association don't lose rights they would enjoy when acting alone.

Campaign finance reform was gutted long before Citizens United. The problem has been patching around those older decisions, which SCOTUS says you cannot do. Until one is willing to say that the expenditure of money (at any amount) is not needed to exercise free speech, then the issue will remain. Try telling that to Ben Franklin when he wanted his writings to be published throughout the colonies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Religion as well, Yankee. Small corporations (and I think private colleges) can now invoke religious rights to deny contraception - and hard to tell what else. The coming years will tell. That is despicable. How it applies to Atlasia can be debated, but it's personhood is now being extended to religion. 

When did that happen?

This was introduced more to blunt the possibility of something like the Hobby Lobby case happening in Atlasia, at some point or another. I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about not automatically giving corporate persons the right to "freedom of speech," which they should not have, given that for them, speech (in the form of advertising and/or influence peddling) is a means of making a profit.

In an era of mass media, it will shut out basically all those who are not already rich from being able ot pool their resources to advocate for a cause, though. Is free speech really to be made thep reserve of the wealthy?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80715630/

The concept is being carried too far, there is precedent to carry it too far, and I will likely vote in favor of the amendment if presented with a take-it-or-leave-it choice.

However, I still want to check how Europe treats this issue and I would also support leaving personhood in place but severely limiting it.

I look forward to hearing of your review on the matter.

However, losing sleep over the bill of rights being taken too far seems rather odd, dear Edward. I mean what if a small business were to it, a sole propreitor. Would it then be okay to restrict freedom of religion from the individual to deal with a problem that could easly be fixed with a different interpretation? The problem is not the bill of rights is too inflexible, I frankly like the idea that it is difficult for the gov't to get around the stiplulations contained therein, but rather problem with its application in certain select areas. I still think that if anything at all is required ,it is a scaple not a chainsaw.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This would upset so much in the legal field if this actually was ratified. I know some of us did not agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, but stripping corporations of their legal rights would basically allow the government to do anything they want to do to them without any ramifications. The entire foundation of corporate law is built on the maxim that corporations have the same rights and, in turn, the same responsibilities as persons.

I know my friend TNF wants corporations to be entirely adherent to the whims of the government and to be at their mercy at all times, but this is just food for thought.

No, I want corporations to be owned and managed by the people who work there. Big difference.

I do find it interesting that you do not believe in "collective" rights".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's about exploitation, dear Yankee. The rights granted to natural persons should not be extended in every instance to a corporation so that the corporation can completely and utterly dominate under the guise of "freedom."

What I'm able to ascertain is that for an exceedingly long period of time there has been a distinction made between a "natural person" and an "artificial person." An artificial person would be a corporation, a church, etc. So, extending the exact same rights of natural persons to artificial persons would be a mistake, IMO, and could lead to the very thing we're seeing IRL.

The people who make up the corporation, for e.g., already have freedom of religion. It's unnecessary and undemocratic to say that the corporation has freedom of religion so that it can deny its employees an important branch of healthcare. See?

Plus, I don't like this right wing notion I'm reading that "Well, I don't like the Hobby Lobby decision, but. . ." But nothing. The exploitation of rights granted to natural persons by artificial persons should be curtailed is what I'm saying.

When dealing with legal matters, one often finds frequent uses of words like "but".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

We never heard anything back from the President and think this too much of a hatchet approach to the Bill of Rights regarding collective rights, when a scapel is necessary.