View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 34 of 71 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #331
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    From the decision:

    Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” 441b’s prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this con-clusion. Pp. 20–25.
    The Court has recognized that the First Amendment appliesto corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of politicalspeech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429.

  2. #332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
    Like homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, corporations are extensions of the person. It's not that the corporation has its own rights, it's that the corporation is a part of a person or persons who have those rights.

  3. #333
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    But you haven't proved that my position is wrong. I have refuted every argument thrown including some that people should be ashamed to have proffered in the first place.
    By repeating your opinions, which are not supported by the caselaw at all.

  4. #334
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Like homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, corporations are extensions of the person. It's not that the corporation has its own rights, it's that the corporation is a part of a person or persons who have those rights.
    No, you have a right to no unreasonable search and seizure, but not your house! The cops can search your house all they want without a warrant. Houses aren't people!


  5. #335
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    So you think the SCOTUS made a bad decision. A mistake, yes? Have you argued here on this board tha the SCOTUS was wrong in that decision? Did you argue that your position is correct and they are wrong?
    I think it was a bad decision and disagree with the court's analysis. However, I acknowledge that the case exists and is good law.

    You think this was a bad decision and disagree the court's analysis. You're then claiming that the hundred+ years of jurisprudence providing a basis for this decision didn't happen. You're going much farther than the dissent in this case, making demonstrably false statements about the state of the law without offering one iota of support for your position or demonstrating any understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Again, where in the First Amendment does it say that only people have the right to free speech? It says Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of speech. That's it.
    OK, after 8 pages of you saying that and me explaining it to you, I'll give it one more shot.
    Your argument seems to be that since the first amendment doesn't say only people have free speech then it should apply to... "anything". You happen to be arguing for corporations in place of "anything"

    BY YOUR OWN LOGIC. My truck has free speech. My dog has free speech.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    There is only one period in that paragraph. This indicates that all things in the paragraph are related to what is be said.

  7. #337
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    From the decision:
    From First National v. Belotti:

    The Massachusetts court did not go so far as to accept appellee's argument that corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. See Brief for Appellee 4, 23-25. Cf. MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissent, post, at 809; MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S dissent, post, p. 822. The court below recognized that such an extreme position could not be reconciled either with the many decisions holding state laws invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they infringe protected speech by corporate bodies, e. g., Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), or with decisions affording corporations the protection of constitutional guarantees other than the First Amendment. E. g., United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 353 (1977) (Fourth Amendment)....In cases where corporate speech has been denied the shelter of the First Amendment, there is no suggestion that the reason was because a corporation rather than an individual or association was involved. E. g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957). Corporate identity has been determinative in several decisions denying corporations certain constitutional rights, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 382 -386 (1911), or equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 65 -67 (1974); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 651 -652 (1950), but this is not because the States are free to define the rights of their creatures without constitutional limit. Otherwise, corporations could be denied the protection of all constitutional guarantees, including due process and the equal protection of the laws. Certain "purely personal" guarantees, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, are unavailable to corporations and other organizations because the "historic function" of the particular guarantee has been limited to the protection of individuals. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944). Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.

    [ Footnote 15 ] It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    But hey, none of those cases happened either, I guess.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #338
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    BY YOUR OWN LOGIC. My truck has free speech. My dog has free speech.
    This in entirely correct.

    They just don't take advantage of it. Well, your dog does, but you probably don't understand him completely.

    Who knows, if one day dogs (or A.I. controlled trucks) evolve enough to speak, would you rather they didn't have the right to?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #339
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Porchev View Post
    Aren't corporations built by and made up of people?
    They are built by people, just like my truck. They are licensed by the State to legally exist. Just like my truck.

    I, a person, never had to be licensed by the State in order to exist or have any rights protected.

  10. #340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    But, according to this excerpt from the above link, they are treated like a person in some ways.



    The recent ruling seems only to add that they can "sponser" political ads, if my understanding is correct.
    But you can't simply stop at and excise the context.

    "The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders."

Page 34 of 71 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •