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 36 of 71 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #351
    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
    I never argued that there was case law. I am arguing that corporations do not deserve nor are they entitled to "personhood".
    Corporations are legal persons by definition.

    But it doesn't matter. Personhood is irrelevant.

    The first amendment mentions Religion, The Press and The People. No mention of corporations.
    The First Amendment mentions freedom of speech. No mention of persons, corporations, or anything else in that part.

  2. #352
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    From First National v. Belotti:
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    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).
    Within the meaning of the 14th amendment! NOT THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
    Courts seems to recognize that corporations are not persons but continually allow them protections afforded only to people. I wonder why that is? Judicial activism?
    Last edited by NoJingoLingo; 01-25-10 at 09:09 PM.

  3. #353
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Courts seems to recognize that corporations are not persons but continually allow them protections afforded only to people. I wonder why that is? Judicial activism?
    No.

    Corporations are representatives of people, and hence their protections transfer.

    Why is it illegal for the state to walk into the corporate headquarters of Wal Mart and demand the employment records? Because the people owning WalMart are protected under the Fourth amendment and hence so are the corporate properties they own. Why can Wal Mart finance political advertising? Because the people that own the corporation can.

  4. #354
    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
    That's ridiculous, my homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, are not an extension of me, they are items I own.
    Exactly, they are your property, and as you have a right to be secure in your property, no one can search your things without due cause.

  5. #355
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    I don't think this is a sustainable reading of the text.

    Let's pretend the Constitution says the following:

    "Congress shall make no law banning television, nor any law banning movies, nor any law abridging the right of cats to eat kibble."

    Does that mean that Congress can ban everyone other than cats from watching TV or movies, simply because it refers to cats in the last clause? Or does it mean that Congress cannot ban TV or movies, and that cats can eat kibble?
    Who was the Constitution written for, cats or people?
    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,(for we the people) establish justice,(for we the people) insure domestic tranquility,(for we the people) provide for the common defense,(for we the people) promote the general welfare,(for we the people) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, (all people)do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    So you acknowledge that there is nothing to support your position other than your own interpretation of the Constitution and some irrelevant quotes. Good.
    I believe the quotes are indeed relevant.

    Uh, what? Here's the 14th Amendment:



    Can you highlight the portion that refers to corporations?
    My bad, I'm responding so quickly to 3 or 4 people, I made a mistake.

  6. #356
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Who was the Constitution written for, cats or people?
    It was obviously an analogy.
    Education.

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

  7. #357
    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
    Who was the Constitution written for, cats or people?
    Well if you listen to Pro-Choice, the Constitution was written for any animal that can think.

    If you listen to Pro-Gay 'Marriage the constitution was written for penguins.

  8. #358
    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
    Who was the Constitution written for, cats or people?
    What are corporations for?

  9. #359
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Think of it this way:

    You see a political ad on TV. You don't know who ran it. Does it really matter if the money came from a bunch of people who got together and pooled their money, or from a bunch of people who got together and formed a corporation to do it? Does it make any difference? It's still the same ad.

  10. #360
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    Corporations are representatives of people, and hence their protections transfer.
    No, they are a liability shield, granted to exist by the State.

    Why is it illegal for the state to walk into the corporate headquarters of Wal Mart and demand the employment records? Because the people owning WalMart are protected under the Fourth amendment and hence so are the corporate properties they own.
    I don't know that this is true. It would seem that the police may enter Wal-Mart without a warrant whereas they cannot walk into my home without a warrant. I believe those personnel records are protected by the rights of the people who's information it is, not Wal-Marts 4th amendment right.


    [quote[Why can Wal Mart finance political advertising? Because the people that own the corporation can.[/QUOTE]
    So your giving those people additional rights. Would that be anything like the argument that gay marriage is giving gay people additional rights?
    Last edited by NoJingoLingo; 01-25-10 at 09:38 PM.

Page 36 of 71 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •