• 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
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.

Wow, I'm glad we cleared that up... :stooges
 
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.
Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.
 
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.

And you would be very, very wrong about that.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

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.

Note the other ways that corporations have constitutional rights noted in this section. There are many others.
 
Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.

NEITHER? So a group of unincorporated persons doesn't have freedom of speech? You sure that's what you meant?

And if individuals already have that right, then you should mean both should be allowed, not neither.
 
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.

You see, goonion speech is protected in the views of some people.

People using their money to protect themselves from goonions isn't acceptable to these people.
 
Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.

Exactly.

Groups of people do not need additional freedom to run advertising and the Congress is prohibited from impeding the efforts of groups of people to speak publicly.

Corporations are "groups of people".
 
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.

"Good law" is a legal term meaning that the principles in question retain predecential effect.

http://west.thomson.com/documentation/westlaw/wlawdoc/lawstu/lskcqr03.pdf

Roe is "good law" in that it is still in force.

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.

So you disagree with the court in terms of policy and interpretation. That's fine. I'm simply pointing out that:

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.

Within the meaning of the 14th amendment! NOT THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

Think about why the court is using the 14th Amendment to apply the 1st Amendment in a case involving a state limitation on corporate speech and you'll have the answer to your unspoken question.

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, it's because the protections are not afforded only to people.

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."

Which has what to do with my question of linguistic construction?

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.

My bad, I'm responding so quickly to 3 or 4 people, I made a mistake.

No problem.
 
And I showed it was not a valid analogy.

How?

He used an analogy with cats in the place of people, and you say the constitution was not written for cats...

How does that invalidate his analogy?
 
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.

I don't have to prove your position wrong. It's your position. You prove it right.

Your description of the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular, are contrary to 220 years of understanding. Others have posted plenty of links to source material showing exactly that.

You've offered absolutely nothing to back up your position. It's the way you'd prefer things, no doubt -- but it's not the way it is.
 
Corporations are "groups of people".

No, they are not. They are a legal construct. They are not formed for the purpose of speech. And their political donations(speech) do not represent the bidding of any group of people.
 
No, they are not. They are a legal construct. They are not formed for the purpose of speech. And their political donations(speech) do not represent the bidding of any group of people.

I mean...did you even bother yourself with the evidence to the contrary or what?
 
I mean...did you even bother yourself with the evidence to the contrary or what?
The evidence is sophistry.

It is common sense, as Sarah is so found of repeating. Corporations are not people. They do not speak for any person or group's point of view.

And those pesky right wing supreme court judges, apparently don't care what the framers thought about the concept. I thought they were the "originalists"???? The framers ,clearly, did not consider corporations "persons". Ah, given a little prod and they all turn out to be activist partisans.

All in all, though, I am beginning to think the decision may be all for the good. Congress will probably pass some law that requires the C.E.O. to get up in front of the camera and say, " I am Joe Schmuck, head of Bank of America and approve this message" Maybe Americans will wake up and demand better representation. Then again, maybe I am dreamin..
 
Back
Top Bottom