• 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
What we are arguing about it that the SCOTUS effectively gave corporations the same 1st amendment right as people. Corporations are not people, but rather entities COMPLETELY unlike a person and are not therefore protected like a person i.e. corporate personhood.

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.
 
Aren't corporations built by and made up of people?
 
No. Point?
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?
 
Yes, you keep saying it, but you're wrong. You have your own theory of things which does not match what actually is. You made it up.
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.
 
What the SCOTUS did was say that corporations can have political speech protected. Since they've ruled before that spending money on campaign ads is political speech and therefore protected speech, they can spend all they want on political speech. What we are arguing about it that the SCOTUS effectively gave corporations the same 1st amendment right as people. Corporations are not people, but rather entities COMPLETELY unlike a person and are not therefore protected like a person i.e. corporate personhood.

I even provided the legal definition of a corporation.

Corporations | LII / Legal Information Institute

But, according to this excerpt from the above link, they are treated like a person in some ways.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

The recent ruling seems only to add that they can "sponser" political ads, if my understanding is correct.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!

:mrgreen:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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."
 
"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.

Yes, it means Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Since it does not specify "of people", Congress cannot pass a law forbidding your dog to make political speech.

Slanderous speech is something else, your dog can be sued for slander. But if he's barking for a candidate, Congress can't muzzle him.
 
OK, after 8 pages of you saying that and me explaining it to you, I'll give it one more shot.

You explained nothing. This is your first try. Don't just give up now, I'm willing to have a good debate if you are.

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.

Sure, your truck has freedom of speech. The next time it speaks, let us know.

Seriously - let's look at this. Yes, the Constitution says that Congress cannot make a law restricting the freedom of speech of your truck. When and if it makes such a law, and you sue on behalf of your truck, the courts will strike it down. But you really don't have to worry about it, as you know.

I could play this game too - a dead person is still a person, so by your logic dead people have freedom of speech. Babies have freedom of speech because they are persons, even before they learn to speak. Mute people have freedom of speech too.

"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.

Oooh, nice try. But no. They said exactly what they meant, in the order they meant.

Would you say that only people have freedom of religion, meaning that the government could shut down a church since a church is a group and not a person? Would you say the government could shut down a newspaper because it's not a person?
 
Last edited:
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.
That's ridiculous, my homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, are not an extension of me, they are items I own.
 
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."

I bolded the part I felt relevant. I included the rest of the paragraph, and the link still works in your post.

How do those further words in any way contradict my point, or support yours?
 
That's ridiculous, my homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, are not an extension of me, they are items I own.

So the government can search them at will. They don't have rights. Only people have rights.
 
By repeating your opinions, which are not supported by the caselaw at all.

I never argued that there was case law. I am arguing that corporations do not deserve nor are they entitled to "personhood". You have given a reason why you think they should and I have given you the wording of the Constitution and some quotes from some Founding Fathers.

The Constitution speaks of corporations in the 14th amendment, which should indicate that someone knew there is a difference between a person and a corporation.

The first amendment mentions Religion, The Press and The People. No mention of corporations.
 
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!

:mrgreen:

Does the Constitution specifically deal with this issue that you poke fun at?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Constitution is not just some rag that we should just change for political or financial benefit. It does a pretty good job and maybe we shoudl follow it a bit more. Sure some things need to be updated due to technological advances but we should be very stingy on our interpretations and changes.
 
"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.

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?

I never argued that there was case law. I am arguing that corporations do not deserve nor are they entitled to "personhood". You have given a reason why you think they should and I have given you the wording of the Constitution and some quotes from some Founding Fathers.

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

The Constitution speaks of corporations in the 14th amendment, which should indicate that someone knew there is a difference between a person and a corporation.

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

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Can you highlight the portion that refers to corporations?
 
Last edited:
The Constitution is not just some rag that we should just change for political or financial benefit. It does a pretty good job and maybe we shoudl follow it a bit more. Sure some things need to be updated due to technological advances but we should be very stingy on our interpretations and changes.

The US Supreme Court just rejected a law restricting speech and thereby re-affirmed the Constitutional importance of Freedom of Speech.

So what's your problem here?
 
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.
Good law? How can it be a bad decision but good law? That is an oxymoron because the decision and the law are the same thing.

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.
Then demonstrate that my statements about the state of the law are false.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom