Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.They are bat**** insane to believe that a corporation, that is not alive, has no possible way of expressing itself and is not a human, can have rights.
Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?GM is nothing but a brand for which a business operates.
GM is not a living person nor can it talk, move, or express emotion.
It can not hire anyone, only a person can hire someone else.
Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.That's not it at all, I was just saying that the reasons for grouping are not always more efficient in lobbying for a specific individuals cause.
To be honest this isn't my main objection to corporate personhood.
My biggest problem is the deferment of liability.