• 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
Lord Tammerlain said:
That is what a corporation is for it takes the civil responsibility of the business. But it cant be held criminally liablel can it? Would the entire company be thrown in jail or just those responsible for the crime?
Click to expand...

You obviously can't throw a corporation in jail, so you would punish those employees that broke the law. However, corporations can be prosecuted criminally, though it doesn't happen frequently for very good reasons. A criminal indictment is essentially a death sentence to any publicly held company, and as the government realized with the Arthur Anderson debacle, is a terrible method of achieving deterrence. That's why we have deferred prosecution agreements.
 
The Mark said:
But ANY group is an assembling of people.
Click to expand...
I agree. What's your point, that once a group of people assemble then suddenly the "group", not the individuals, but the "group" now has the rights of a person? So I can just form group after group after group...

So I can call ten people and tell them to meet me in the park. Once we get there we assemble and using our new found rights we all contribute the maximum amount of money we are allowed by law. Then we disperse and meet up 10 minutes later in the south corner of the park. Now we are a new group and we donate again... then we disperse and move to the north end of the park.

I know its tough to be wrong but you really should think about the context and the possible rebuttals before you throw your crap against the wall. So far nothing has stuck.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Even if one accepted the ludicrous idea that the First Amendment does apply to corporations even though it doesn't mention them...
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention people either!

It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. NO law.
 
For one to think that a corporation has to same rights or should be treated the same as a man is insane!
And the correct term is "manhood", not the damned politically correct "person-thing".
Have we all gone insane?!
I agree with Senator McCains take on this.. But he strikes me as too meek and mild.
But campaign finance reform must not die; I do not think anybody , any man, or entity should give one red penny for anyone's political campaign.
That political power can be bought....this is reprehensible.
Instead, the political running time should be short and sweet and financed by all of the electorate(our government).
And, yes, the taxes will increase...and NO apologies to the conservatives.
 
earthworm said:
For one to think that a corporation has to same rights or should be treated the same as a man is insane!
Click to expand...

Nobody said that.

Laws that restrict speech are unconstitutional. Pretty simple.
 
RightinNYC said:
Says the guy who doesn't know the first thing about it.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who doesn't know the first thing about it or me.

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.
Click to expand...
Holy ****.

Dude, the fact that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about doesn't mean that you should just ramble. 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.
Click to expand...
I have read every page and every post which is more than I can say about you.

Yes I think do know better than the SC on this. Now if you'd like to play some little game about how right the SC is then I'd be happy to. I'm sure I can find a decision you disagree with and then sarcastically claim that you must know better than they... I know it's difficult but TRY being consistent and honest in your debates.
 
misterman said:
It doesn't mention people either!

It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. NO law.
Click to expand...

Tis foolish to base an argument based on an imperfect document written centuries ago....
Laws will have to be written as long as man refuses to behave himself(shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
 
Harshaw said:
Because YOU say so?

:rofl



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.
Click to expand...
This is based on the fact that you can have the ability to see the future. I could REALLY use the winning lotter numbers!! :mrgreen:
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
I already did, try reading the thread instead of mucking up the thread with gibberish.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you've run out of crap to throw at the wall and have decided now to turn to simply blathering without anything substantive to say.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Says the guy who doesn't know the first thing about it or me.

Holy ****.

Dude, the fact that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about doesn't mean that you should just ramble. This is some basic stuff.

I have read every page and every post which is more than I can say about you.
Click to expand...

I provided you with citations to case law. You said "Try reading the Constitution." Yes, you've certainly got the upper hand in this debate.

Yes I think do know better than the SC on this.
Click to expand...

Why? Explain what part of the opinion you think is wrong, and cite some case law that supports for your position.

Now if you'd like to play some little game about how right the SC is then I'd be happy to. I'm sure I can find a decision you disagree with and then sarcastically claim that you must know better than they... I know it's difficult but TRY being consistent and honest in your debates.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference between your position and mine:

You could very easily find plenty of SC decisions I would disagree with. I would happily admit that I think the case turned out the wrong way. However, I would not then turn around and claim that those decisions are not good law because I don't like them.

On the other hand, when you are presented with decisions that you don't like, you start ranting about how your misinterpretation of a portion of the Constitution proves that you're right. That's not quite the same thing.

Here are indisputable facts:

Both the liberals and conservatives on the SC have agreed for centuries that the Constitution applies to more than just individuals. Both the liberals and the conservatives on the SC have agreed for decades that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money in order to influence the political process. The court is currently skirmishing over the scope of this right, but the underlying principles that I have mentioned are not in doubt.

You're free to think this is bad policy. You're free to think that the court got it wrong and it should all be changed. What you're not free to do is come up with your own facts and pretend like none of this ever happened.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I agree. What's your point, that once a group of people assemble then suddenly the "group", not the individuals, but the "group" now has the rights of a person? So I can just form group after group after group...

So I can call ten people and tell them to meet me in the park. Once we get there we assemble and using our new found rights we all contribute the maximum amount of money we are allowed by law. Then we disperse and meet up 10 minutes later in the south corner of the park. Now we are a new group and we donate again... then we disperse and move to the north end of the park.

I know its tough to be wrong but you really should think about the context and the possible rebuttals before you throw your crap against the wall. So far nothing has stuck.
Click to expand...
No, that was not my point.

You said:
NoJingoLingo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect in your apparent differentiation between some arbitrary definition of "group", and a group which is an assembling of people. I was saying that no essential difference exists.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
"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?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid for you that I do and you are simply scrambling because you can't bear to be wrong. That shows a real weakness of character.

"The Press" is an idea (which is why we are able to apply it's label to TV, radio, the internet... Put into action it is the vehicle for ideas - free speech.

Take a journalism course, it might help you understand what you are talking about.

We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. It is however, the prostituted companion of liberty, and somehow or other, we know not how, its efficient auxiliary. It follows the substance like its shade; but while a man walks erect, he may observe that his shadow is almost always in the dirt. It corrupts, it deceives, it inflames. It strips virtue of her honors, and lends to faction its wildfire and its poisoned arms, and in the end is its own enemy and the usurper's ally, It would be easy to enlarge on its evils. They are in England, they are here, they are everywhere. It is a precious pest, and a necessary mischief, and there would be no liberty without it.
Fisher Ames, Review of the Pamphlet on the State of the British Constituiton, 1807
Click to expand...
If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.
Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz. The Court of the Press, September 12, 1789
Click to expand...
To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1798
Click to expand...
Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816
Click to expand...
No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will.
Thomas Jefferson, September 9, 1792
Click to expand...
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824
Click to expand...
Who are "they"?
Freedom of the press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom of the press, is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials.
Click to expand...

Press quotes
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist that because a document doesn't contain something that it obviously meant that that "something" should be included at will or a whim. The creators of the Constitution and all State Constitutions could have had the world corporation included but NONE of them do. So why do you feel it necessary to include them yourself?
 
misterman said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I love the way people who take things out of context to make it fit their desired position.

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.
Click to expand...
Again, Religion, Freedom of speech and peacably assemble are mention and who do they apply to? THE PEOPLE. The ONLY place corporations are mentioned in the Constitution is in article 14.

Search the entire LII site

A corporation is a legal entity created through the laws of its state of incorporation. Individual states have the power to promulgate laws relating to the creation, organization and dissolution of corporations. Many states follow the Model Business Corporation Act. (See Minnesota's adoption.) State corporation laws require articles of incorporation to document the corporation's creation and to provide provisions regarding the management of internal affairs. Most state corporation statutes also operate under the assumption that each corporation will adopt bylaws to define the rights and obligations of officers, persons and groups within its structure. States also have registration laws requiring corporations that incorporate in other states to request permission to do in-state business.
Click to expand...
 
misterman said:
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.



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



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



Are churches groups? Hmmm. What about when a corporate entity is sued - does it have a right to a jury trial, etc? I wonder.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep bring up the same arguments over and over again after they have been rebutted. Just admit that your idea about this subject is wrong. and move on, more informed.
 
misterman said:
So you're saying newspapers don't spend money?



The point is they ARE corporations, yet nobody would say they have no right to freedom of the press. Even if they were a partnership - a partnership is not an individual. It's a partnership.



Don't use the term retarded please. It's rude.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." No exceptions based on who, or what, is speaking.



Yes, it does:



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What about churches - do they have freedom of religion?



Hey, fine - then the individuals running the corporations are the ones doing the freedom of speech thing.



Corporations can make choices too.

You, like so many people, jumped to a hasty conclusion you didn't think through. Not a big deal, just drop it.
Click to expand...
Do you have to be a corporation in order to be protected under the "Freedom of the Press"? Since you seem to have a problem with concepts I'll give you an example.

If I print a monthly newsletter about Daisies, am I suddenly a corporation? Is my newsletter protected under the "Freedom of the Press" clause?
 
misterman said:
It doesn't mention people either!

It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. NO law.
Click to expand...
I really wanted to stand up and yell for the umpteenth time that it does actually mention people and you simply wish to ignore it.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Going back to the OP question, I have a question.

At what point in time did corporations gain any or all the rights of a person?

At the time, I assumed it was in reference to the recent SCOTUS decision.

I have a different take on the SCOTUS decision.

As a disclaimer, I haven’t read the SCOTUS decision, and all information I have gleaned about it has been screened through DP (I is lazy).

SCOTUS was not saying "A corporation has the right to free speech".

SCOTUS was saying "preventing the use of corporate funds for political ads by those individuals who control said corporation limits the free speech rights of those individuals."

Any thoughts?
 
misterman said:
Nobody said that.

Laws that restrict speech are unconstitutional. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Again, you just throw some crap out and hope no one is smart enough to call you on it. An intelligent person would have learned by now...

So, I can stand up in a crowded theater and yell FIRE!!! :doh
 
RightinNYC said:
I provided you with citations to case law. You said "Try reading the Constitution." Yes, you've certainly got the upper hand in this debate.



Why? Explain what part of the opinion you think is wrong, and cite some case law that supports for your position.



Here's the difference between your position and mine:

You could very easily find plenty of SC decisions I would disagree with. I would happily admit that I think the case turned out the wrong way. However, I would not then turn around and claim that those decisions are not good law because I don't like them.

On the other hand, when you are presented with decisions that you don't like, you start ranting about how your misinterpretation of a portion of the Constitution proves that you're right. That's not quite the same thing.

Here are indisputable facts:

Both the liberals and conservatives on the SC have agreed for centuries that the Constitution applies to more than just individuals. Both the liberals and the conservatives on the SC have agreed for decades that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money in order to influence the political process. The court is currently skirmishing over the scope of this right, but the underlying principles that I have mentioned are not in doubt.

You're free to think this is bad policy. You're free to think that the court got it wrong and it should all be changed. What you're not free to do is come up with your own facts and pretend like none of this ever happened.
Click to expand...

Do you believe Roe V Wade was a "good" legal decision?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Do you have to be a corporation in order to be protected under the "Freedom of the Press"?
Click to expand...

No.

But you can be a group and not an individual. Individuals aren't the only entities that have rights under the First Amendment.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Again, you just throw some crap out and hope no one is smart enough to call you on it. An intelligent person would have learned by now...

So, I can stand up in a crowded theater and yell FIRE!!! :doh
Click to expand...

Please don't start throwing out insults or accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I know this stuff really well. Of course there are exceptions - but the exceptions have nothing to do with who is speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom