• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%

  • Total voters
    64
A gathering of people to form a corporation isn't a gathering of PEOPLE for a specific purpose? Your argument is dying and it's dying fast.
What purpose did those people gather for? To create a corporation, once they do so they are no longer an assembly of people. Again, you're trying to use an adulterated definition of "assembly".
 
That's completely ridiculous. If that were true then if groups didn't exist, people wouldn't exist. See how ignorant that is?

No, that's a different argument.

He is saying that a group, comprised of X number of persons, while not having rights of it's own, is, obviously, comprised of persons who DO have rights.

Thus, restricting the rights of a group restricts the rights of the people who make it up.
 
No, that's a different argument.

He is saying that a group, comprised of X number of persons, while not having rights of it's own, is, obviously, comprised of persons who DO have rights.

Thus, restricting the rights of a group restricts the rights of the people who make it up.
OK, I can see my mistake. Here's the solution. The individuals all still have their individual rights in tact. The "group" never had any rights to begin with and any rights gained are given by the government and can be removed. Assuming of course the group is not simply an assembling of people.

Let's not be quite so loose with our definitions just to shoe horn our opinions.
 
OK, I can see my mistake. Here's the solution. The individuals all still have their individual rights in tact. The "group" never had any rights to begin with and any rights gained are given by the government and can be removed. Assuming of course the group is not simply an assembling of people.

Let's not be quite so loose with our definitions just to shoe horn our opinions.
But ANY group is an assembling of people.
 
But ANY group is an assembling of people.
If a person joins the A.A.R.P. or the N.R.A. they do so because they agree with the N.R.A/ AARP 's lobbying positions.

That is completely untrue of a corporation. Who is even "speaking" when a corporation pays for an ad to support or attack a candidate? The employee? Certainly not. The Shareholder? Doubtful. Even the C.E.O. or board of directors may well consent to buy ads that run contrary to their personal views and preferences because they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. The Corporations is an artificial legal construct and "political expression' has nothing to do with individuals gathering to express themselves.
 
If a person joins the A.A.R.P. or the N.R.A. they do so because they agree with the N.R.A/ AARP 's lobbying positions.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that many of them join because they agree with most of those organizations lobbying positions. Not all. Probably a few join who don't agree at all, however odd that might be.

But, essentially, you are correct.

That is completely untrue of a corporation. Who is even "speaking" when a corporation pays for an ad to support or attack a candidate? The employee? Certainly not. The Shareholder? Doubtful. Even the C.E.O. or board of directors may well consent to buy ads that run contrary to their personal views and preferences because they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. The Corporations is an artificial legal construct and "political expression' has nothing to do with individuals gathering to express themselves.
Not necessarily. Some employees may agree entirely with the political positions of the corporation they work for.

But also essentially correct.

However, I would argue that as both the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A take political positions which benefit their members, so also do corporations take political positions which benefit their members.
 
Yes there is. The Constitution.


Again you ignore the Constitution. Try reading it.

Says the guy who doesn't know the first thing about it.

Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations". :roll:

Holy ****.

Dude, the fact that the 9th amendment refers to "the people" does not mean that everything else in the Constitution is only applicable to the people. This is some basic stuff.

Since you obviously didn't bother to read the thread, I'll do you the favor of linking to a post where this was explained.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/64668-corporate-personhood-5.html#post1058506490

But hey, by all means, you obviously know much better than the SC.
 
Last edited:
Only for people who can't read the constitution... like the 5 republican judges on the SCOTUS.

Because YOU say so?

:rofl

Is that supposed to be some kind of intelligent argument or are you simply exercising your right?

I'm saying that "corporations" are a boogeyman, and when the "problems" that keeping corporate money out of political advertising are supposed to solve don't actually GET solved, you'll have to find something else to blame, and to outlaw, no doubt.
 
1) it was an analogy and a poor one as I noted.

Yes, it was a tangentially relevant analogy.

2) It's not opinion it's FACT. When a sperm fuses with an egg it creates a zygote. A zygote is a single-cell that contains two copies of chromosomes—one copy from each parent. In the week following fertilization, the zygote undergoes rapid cell division and becomes a mass of cells known as a blastocyst. After more cell division, the blastocyst splits in half.

Now you are aware of the fact.

:roll:

The opinion is whether or not the zygote represents a person. Your opinion is that it does not. His is that it does.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

Then dispute it instead of just barking.

No, you prove it, becuse you are the one making the factual assertion.

But you won't be able to, because you pulled it out of thin air.
 
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You have a hard time understanding the difference between "people" and "corporations". :roll:

You are having a hard time understanding the scope of the Bill of Rights.

What a thing, having a philosophy which requires you to come up with novel ways to diminish the scope of protection it affords.
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

No, you prove it, becuse you are the one making the factual assertion.

But you won't be able to, because you pulled it out of thin air.

And it was really thin air to begin with...
 
There is no inconsistency with my view. I didn't say the NYT was a group. "The Press" (in 1776) was the vehicle (print media) responsible for gathering and publishing news.

"Freedom of the press" is not "freedom of a form a media." It's a freedom of anyone to publish, to create and distribute words on a page. It's an action, not a thing.

You really don't understand this stuff, do you?
 
"Freedom of the press" is not "freedom of a form a media." It's a freedom of anyone to publish, to create and distribute words on a page. It's an action, not a thing.

You really don't understand this stuff, do you?

I always thought it was "freedom of the press".

As in, the actual "press" which was used to print the news sheets.

:mrgreen:
 
I don't really know what else to say, because you're simply wrong on this. A quote from a layman's explanation of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means does not trump the actual text of the Constitution and years of jurisprudence. The first amendment applies to more than just individuals. If you don't want to take my word for it, take the Supreme Court's:

From First Nat Bank v. Bellotti:

This is well settled law.

The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.

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.

It basic anthropomorphism.

Where are you getting this from?

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.

Again, this doesn't make any sense. The Catholic church is the one paying the salaries of priests. If government passed a law forbidding the expenditure of money on priests, that would be analogous to government passing a law forbidding corporations to spend money on advertising. Using your framework, because neither one is technically a person, they have no rights and those laws would be fine. If you want to say that the individual members of the catholic church are having their freedom of religion infringed by such a law, then you would have to say that the individual members of a corporation would be having their freedom of speech infringed by such a law.

The individuals can say whatever they want but a church and corporation can not.
A church cannot talk, cannot express itself, does not have a brain.

Laws that restrict the establishment of a church which is required for one person to practice religion, infringe on that one person's right to religion.

And as explained above, this is incorrect.

Faulty interpretations don't make for good arguments.

So your theory is that because you think it would be inefficient, that somehow means they shouldn't be allowed to do it?

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.
 
Last edited:
I always thought it was "freedom of the press".

As in, the actual "press" which was used to print the news sheets.

:mrgreen:

Yeah, those printing presses work all night for no pay. Free the press!
 
Yeah, those printing presses work all night for no pay. Free the press!

I wonder...

Is anyone out there arguing that "Freedom of the Press" referred only to newspapers, and thus all TV, Radio, and Internet media formats are not protected by it?
 
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.

Where do you get the idea that it was never "meant" to protect people exercising their rights as a group?

You're making a positive statement about intent, which means you have to show it.
 
I wonder...

Is anyone out there arguing that "Freedom of the Press" referred only to newspapers, and thus all TV, Radio, and Internet media formats are not protected by it?

Without realizing it, perhaps.

I like to point that one out when people claim that flag burning isn't speech (because it doesn't involve the act of speaking). I ask them if they think only publishers using printing presses have rights too.
 
Where do you get the idea that it was never "meant" to protect people exercising their rights as a group?

You're making a positive statement about intent, which means you have to show it.

Because very few, if any, groups have the exact same unified beliefs.

Every human is different in beliefs, even if it is a matter of degree.
 
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Nothing about individuals in there. In fact, there's a specific reference to groups - the press. Are newspapers individuals? Most are corporations, by the way.
 
Because very few, if any, groups have the exact same unified beliefs.

Every human is different in beliefs, even if it is a matter of degree.

Why does that change anything?

Do individuals have to be 100% certain of their own opinions to express them too?
 
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Nothing about individuals in there. In fact, there's a specific reference to groups - the press. Are newspapers individuals? Most are corporations, by the way.

"The press" is a generalization referring to many different individuals who publish the great variety of stories, broadcasts etc.
They do not share a unified political view, "the press" is made up of individuals expressing different opinions, beliefs and facts.

Newspapers are not individuals, they are sheets of paper combined with ink to covey information in the form of words.

Corporations have owners and each of these owners can express the right to free speech in any way they want, as individuals.

Why does that change anything?

Do individuals have to be 100% certain of their own opinions to express them too?

Not at all, individuals are allowed to say whatever they want, I don't care.

The Bill of Rights was meant for individual liberties, not group rights.
Who in the group, owns the gun, is allowed a trail by jury, can exercise in their freedom of religion?

Individuals are afforded these rights, not groups.
 
Actually, I would hazard a guess that many of them join because they agree with most of those organizations lobbying positions. Not all. Probably a few join who don't agree at all, however odd that might be.

But, essentially, you are correct.


Not necessarily. Some employees may agree entirely with the political positions of the corporation they work for.

But also essentially correct.

However, I would argue that as both the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A take political positions which benefit their members, so also do corporations take political positions which benefit their members.

What evidence is there that corporations speak for either employees or shareholders? None . A "share" is simply a financial instrument not a political position.
 
"The press" is a generalization referring to many different individuals who publish the great variety of stories, broadcasts etc.

They do not share a unified political view, "the press" is made up of individuals expressing different opinions, beliefs and facts.

Newspapers are not individuals, they are sheets of paper combined with ink to covey information in the form of words.

Do newspapers have rights, or just the individuals running them? Newspapers spend corporate money from their their treasuries, exactly like corporations, to pay for the ink and paper to express the views of the individuals.

Corporations have owners and each of these owners can express the right to free speech in any way they want as individuals.

Or as corporate entities. Just like a newspaper publisher can.

The Bill of Rights was meant for individual liberties, not group rights.

Again, read it. There is nothing about individuals with regard to freedom of speech.

Who in the group, owns the gun, is allowed a trail by jury, can exercise in their freedom of religion?

Are churches groups? Hmmm. What about when a corporate entity is sued - does it have a right to a jury trial, etc? I wonder.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom