Corporate personhood

[Emsworth]

I'm undecided on this matter right now, but am leaning towards No. I would be interesting in hearing arguments to the contrary, however.

[A18]

Depends what you mean. Taking liberty/property from a corporation is taking liberty/property from its owners, and may not be done without due process of law.

[Emsworth]

Clarifying, I mean in the context of the equal protection clause.

[A18]

In the abstract, it could mean that. In the abstract, it could mean a lot of things. It could mean we have to draft women, install unisex toilets in state buildings, and let four year olds vote.

But of course, that would deny the clause its fair meaning and its historic context. The main, if not sole, purpose of that clause, was to establish the absolute political equality of the races in the eyes of each state's laws.

[Emsworth]

In the abstract, it could mean that. In the abstract, it could mean a lot of things. It could mean we have to draft women, install unisex toilets in state buildings, and let four year olds vote.

I would agree that the clause has been carried to unfortunate extremes by decisions like Reynolds v. Sims.

[2952-0-0]

Should corporations be allowed to vote?

[Emsworth]

Should corporations be allowed to vote?

That is not the question at hand. I ask, in effect, are corporations entitled to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment?

[??????????]

Should corporations be allowed to vote?

That is not the question at hand. I ask, in effect, are corporations entitled to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Well you must understand that the original intent behind the creation of the corporation was to protect the individuals who run the corporations. If I remember correctly our favorite president was the first president to bring about corporations.

[Emsworth]

Should corporations be allowed to vote?

That is not the question at hand. I ask, in effect, are corporations entitled to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Well you must understand that the original intent behind the creation of the corporation was to protect the individuals who run the corporations. If I remember correctly our favorite president was the first president to bring about corporations.

Corporations existed under the common law long before the Americas were even colonized, however.

[2952-0-0]

Corporations are cold, dead machines designed to make the exchange of goods and services easier. They don't have rights. Those who run corporations, however, have their personal rights. Cars are cold, dead machines with no rights, but the police cannot tow away your car for no reason because that would violate your personal rights to property.

Get that?

[John Dibble]

Corporations are cold, dead machines designed to make the exchange of goods and services easier. They don't have rights. Those who run corporations, however, have their personal rights. Cars are cold, dead machines with no rights, but the police cannot tow away your car for no reason because that would violate your personal rights to property.

Get that?

I agree very much with this sentiment. A corporation is property, and it can be used by the owners in accordance with their rights.

[Emsworth]

Corporations are cold, dead machines designed to make the exchange of goods and services easier. They don't have rights. Those who run corporations, however, have their personal rights. Cars are cold, dead machines with no rights, but the police cannot tow away your car for no reason because that would violate your personal rights to property.

Corporations are artificial persons under the law, and have been recognized as such for centuries. There are certain rights and privileges attached to them. For example, a corporation has a liability different from the owner's (limited liability). The analogy to cars is, therefore, a false one.

The question is not whether corporations are persons or not. It is a settled point of law: they are indeed persons. The question is, are they protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

[muon2]

Corporations are cold, dead machines designed to make the exchange of goods and services easier. They don't have rights. Those who run corporations, however, have their personal rights. Cars are cold, dead machines with no rights, but the police cannot tow away your car for no reason because that would violate your personal rights to property.

Corporations are artificial persons under the law, and have been recognized as such for centuries. There are certain rights and privileges attached to them. For example, a corporation has a liability different from the owner's (limited liability). The analogy to cars is, therefore, a false one.

The question is not whether corporations are persons or not. It is a settled point of law: they are indeed persons. The question is, are they protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

I agree.

In IL, units of government are also corporations. They can enter into contracts and act as a single entity in law. They provide both limited liability for its members and existence beyond their elected officials' terms. As a particular type of corporation, the state grants these municipal corporations, additions powers and limitations due to their role as governing bodies.

If corporations are fully persons under the fourteenth amendment, wouldn't units of government also be persons in that sense?

[Bono]

Corporations are cold, dead machines designed to make the exchange of goods and services easier. They don't have rights. Those who run corporations, however, have their personal rights. Cars are cold, dead machines with no rights, but the police cannot tow away your car for no reason because that would violate your personal rights to property.

Corporations are artificial persons under the law, and have been recognized as such for centuries. There are certain rights and privileges attached to them. For example, a corporation has a liability different from the owner's (limited liability). The analogy to cars is, therefore, a false one.

The question is not whether corporations are persons or not. It is a settled point of law: they are indeed persons. The question is, are they protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Know what else has been recognize for centuries?
That you cannot extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement.

[Emsworth]

Know what else has been recognize for centuries?
That you cannot extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement.

Personhood falls within the realm of the law. Normative and descriptive statements fall within the realm of philosophy. Precedent is important in the law, but not necessarily in philosophy. Hence, the analogy does not apply.

[Emsworth]

If corporations are fully persons under the fourteenth amendment, wouldn't units of government also be persons in that sense?

The point is moot. Even if units of government are considered artificial persons, they are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: for it is illogical to state, that one branch of government has denied the due process rights of another.

[Bono]

Know what else has been recognize for centuries?
That you cannot extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement.

Personhood falls within the realm of the law. Normative and descriptive statements fall within the realm of philosophy. Precedent is important in the law, but not necessarily in philosophy. Hence, the analogy does not apply.

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws. Thus, just because something ahs always been, doesn't mean it should continue to be.

[Emsworth]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

[Bono]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

Common law can be modiefied and you know that very well.

[Emsworth]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

Common law can be modiefied and you know that very well.

Precedent should not be overturned on a whim.

[John Dibble]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

Common law can be modiefied and you know that very well.

Precedent should not be overturned on a whim.

And if it's bad precedent? Not just on this subject, just saying that commitment to precedent just because it's precedent is not a good idea.

[Emsworth]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

Common law can be modiefied and you know that very well.

Precedent should not be overturned on a whim.

And if it's bad precedent? Not just on this subject, just saying that commitment to precedent just because it's precedent is not a good idea.

If it's bad precedent, it should certainly be overturned. But it should not be overturned on a whim: that is to say, it should not be arbitrarily overturned, without a reason grounded in the law, simply because one feels like it.

In particular, corporate personhood is a legal "term of art." It is not a matter of ethical philosophy. Hence, philosophy doesn't even arise. Obviously, corporations are not persons in the natural sense. However, they may be called "persons" for the purposes of some laws. It's only a matter of nomenclature; ethics and philosophy are utterly unrelated.

[Bono]

It does. Ethical philosphy when applied to politics has  bearing in the making of laws.

That may be, in the first instance, as the laws are being framed. However, the legal system of the United States is based on the common law: therefore, as the common law treats corporations as artificial persons, corporations are artificial persons, whether ethically right or wrong. This is not a question of "what should be the law," but rather a question of "what is the law."

Common law can be modiefied and you know that very well.

Precedent should not be overturned on a whim.

And if it's bad precedent? Not just on this subject, just saying that commitment to precedent just because it's precedent is not a good idea.

If it's bad precedent, it should certainly be overturned. But it should not be overturned on a whim: that is to say, it should not be arbitrarily overturned, without a reason grounded in the law, simply because one feels like it.

In particular, corporate personhood is a legal "term of art." It is not a matter of ethical philosophy. Hence, philosophy doesn't even arise. Obviously, corporations are not persons in the natural sense. However, they may be called "persons" for the purposes of some laws. It's only a matter of nomenclature; ethics and philosophy are utterly unrelated.

Corporate personhood means that the people who act on the name of the corporation will be free from facing the consequences of their actions due to limited liability. SO yes, it is a mater of ethical philosophy.

[Emsworth]

Corporate personhood means that the people who act on the name of the corporation will be free from facing the consequences of their actions due to limited liability. SO yes, it is a mater of ethical philosophy.

You can have limited liability without corporate personhood, and vice versa. The two are mutually exclusive. (e.g., piercing the corporate veil)

[migrendel]

The Santa Clara Railway case, one must remember, is a highly anachronistic precedent. It was decided during a time when the acquisition of capital was an action protected under the notion of "substantive due process". Naturally, if these ideas functioned as the legal normative, interpreting the Constitution in such a fashion was inevitable. However, the Supreme Court began the repudiation of such jejune ideas in 1937, and this case stands as a relic of that period. Unless we see further adumbration of economic due process as we did recently in United States v. Lopez and BMW v. Gore, I would say this precedent is inconsistent and valueless.