Yes, corporations are just like a person
No, corporations are not just like a person
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Note the other ways that corporations have constitutional rights noted in this section. There are many others.4. Although, for the reasons above stated, we are of the [201 U.S. 43, 76] opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation, we do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 14th Amendment, against unlawful discrimination.
Roe is "good law" in that it is still in force.
So you disagree with the court in terms of policy and interpretation. That's fine. I'm simply pointing out that:I think the recent SCOTUS decision is bad law. I think that Corporate personhood is bad. I see no Constitutional justification for it when Congress can and does set ALL of the rules and regulations for corporations. Corporations are not analogous to people. They are entities that exist and are regulated at the will and by license of the State.
Without a Constitutional amendment giving corporations personhood, those court rulings that add pieces of "personhood" to corporations to be in violation of the Constitution.
So your rebuttal is basically a strawman. I did not claim "You're then claiming that the hundred+ years of jurisprudence providing a basis for this decision didn't happen."
Nor am I "making demonstrably false statements about the state of the law"
All the support I've needed and used has been either The Constitution itself, quotes from the founding fathers or definition from Cornell Law School.
1) The court has repeatedly stated that your interpretation is wrong,
2) Your interpretation is not now, nor has it ever been, the law of the land, and
3) I don't see any chance that it ever will be.
No, it's because the protections are not afforded only to people.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?
If a sentence says two general things in its first clauses and then adds another thing referencing one subject at the end, that does not mean that you apply the subject from the end of the sentence to the entire sentence.
No problem.My bad, I'm responding so quickly to 3 or 4 people, I made a mistake.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.