• 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
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

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.

You're attributing these beliefs to those "pesky right wingers"?

Do me a favor:

1) Read this: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes.

2) Go here: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

3) Look at the names of the Justices in the majority:

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined.

Yea, only right wingers like Justice Stevens or the author of Roe v. Wade could possibly agree that corporations enjoy some constitutional rights.
 
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..

Yeah all that "secure in their person and papers" nonsense, what were they thinking :doh
 
No, they are not. They are a legal construct. They are not formed for the purpose of speech.

Corporations may be formed for any legal purpose.
 
The framers ,clearly, did not consider corporations "persons". Ah, given a little prod and they all turn out to be activist partisans.

The Framers most certainly did believe that the Bill of Rights still applies to their activities.

You guys keep claiming that they wouldn't, but no one can find any evidence of that. Funny thing.
 
If the framers had intended corporations to have the rights our courts have given them over the years, and I should point out that judges aren't supposed to make laws, that's the job of Congress, regardless, don't you think they would have addressed them somewhere in the Constitution?

A couple of you have produced court cases that prove the courts have granted rights, that should only apply to people, to corporations. It's judicial activism.

Our country has slowly become a Corporatocracy and this latest affront is just another nail in the coffin of democracy and another boon for corporations.

The corporatists have no morality, allowing corporations to use company funds to influence elections is morally wrong because "the people" cannot compete financially and therefore lose control. Sure, we can vote but based on what information? Who decided what candidates to offer us to choose from? Corporate rule has destroyed this country.
 
If the framers had intended corporations to have the rights our courts have given them over the years, and I should point out that judges aren't supposed to make laws, that's the job of Congress, regardless, don't you think they would have addressed them somewhere in the Constitution?

It's funny; there are a whole slew of things not actually mentioned in the Constitution that I'm sure you think are indisputably sacrosanct, Mr. Zygote.
 
It's funny; there are a whole slew of things not actually mentioned in the Constitution that I'm sure you think are indisputably sacrosanct, Mr. Zygote.
Oh, you mistakenly think that I am in favor of Roe V wade. Foolish. I believe in States rights. Abortion should be a States issue. But you keep on making uninformed opinions, I'm sure it makes you feel better about... something.
 
But you keep on making uninformed opinions, I'm sure it makes you feel better about... something.

Uh . . . says the guy who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to corporations.
 
So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).

I understand that it is law, I'm not denying that.
My problem is with interpretation.

Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.

Then how can it be uniform, if it has some rights but not all?

How can it be a person if it doesn't have all rights?

Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?

Exactly.

Individuals build the products, however, the owners are liable for defects.
It is their responsibility to ensure that a product is safe for the end user, unless there is an assumed risk involved(guns for instance).

Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.

Consequently though, it does avoid liability.

It protects the owners personal assets from seizure which shouldn't be the case as they earn those assets from operating the corporation.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

You're attributing these beliefs to those "pesky right wingers"?

Do me a favor:

1) Read this: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



2) Go here: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

3) Look at the names of the Justices in the majority:



Yea, only right wingers like Justice Stevens or the author of Roe v. Wade could possibly agree that corporations enjoy some constitutional rights.

"SOME" being the operative word.

The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

"SOME" being the operative word.

The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.

In this case, I think they hit on the original intent quite nicely.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.

Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.
 
I understand that it is law, I'm not denying that.
My problem is with interpretation.

That's fair.

Then how can it be uniform, if it has some rights but not all?

How can it be a person if it doesn't have all rights?

I didn't mean to imply that the rights are uniform, but rather that there is unanimity on the court that corporations enjoy some of the same rights. The Justices often disagree about the scope or character of those rights, but there isn't much argument over whether some basic rights exist in the first place.

Consequently though, it does avoid liability.

It protects the owners personal assets from seizure which shouldn't be the case as they earn those assets from operating the corporation.

If an owner improperly accumulates assets due to something that the corporation did wrong, those assets can be recovered. However, there are a multitude of policy reasons why Congress explicitly decided to grant corporations limited liability.

"SOME" being the operative word.

The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.

And the point is that I don't think you have any idea what the original intention of the framers was.

It's funny - whenever we have a liberal-friendly court decision and conservatives are arguing that it doesn't comply with the intent of the framers, the liberals are the first to tell you that we have a living, breathing document and we should ignore what the framers wanted. Now that there's a decision that they mistakenly think is conservative-friendly, they're concerned about what Madison wrote in the margins of his diary.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.

Show that they did.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Show that they did.

Ah, a convenient moment of strict contructionism.

Is only speech, as in with your mouth, protected? Is only the press, meaning someone who uses a printing press to publish, protected?
 
It's funny - whenever we have a liberal-friendly court decision and conservatives are arguing that it doesn't comply with the intent of the framers, the liberals are the first to tell you that we have a living, breathing document and we should ignore what the framers wanted. Now that there's a decision that they mistakenly think is conservative-friendly, they're concerned about what Madison wrote in the margins of his diary.

I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.

It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Ah, a convenient moment of strict contructionism.

Is only speech, as in with your mouth, protected? Is only the press, meaning someone who uses a printing press to publish, protected?
OK so we know you can't show it, now we are waiting on Harshaw.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

OK so we know you can't show it, now we are waiting on Harshaw.

I don't have to show it.

There's nothing that says anything about "persons" having freedom of speech either. It just says no restrictions on speech. Period.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

I don't have to show it.

There's nothing that says anything about "persons" having freedom of speech either. It just says no restrictions on speech. Period.
And corporations can't speak so someone must do it for them. Maybe a CEO, who already has a right to free speech so why give him and additional right?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

And corporations can't speak so someone must do it for them. Maybe a CEO, who already has a right to free speech so why give him and additional right?

Who says it's an "additional right"? :roll:
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Show that they did.

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.

But you're still the one making the claim that they wouldn't want that to include corporations, so YOU have to prove it. YOU have to. We don't have to disprove it.

So far, you haven't even tried.
 
I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.

It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".

If the decision is "conservative friendly", it obeys the Constitution.

That's probably why you don't hear conservatives bitching about constitutional violations when the courts rule in their favor.

Liberatarians....they'll occasionally bitch when a court ruling favors conservatives, but that's because we have a better view of the Constitution than either the left or right.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes. In his opinion, Justice Lewis Powell ruled that a Massachusetts criminal statute prohibiting the expenditure of corporate funds "for the purpose of ... influencing or affecting" voters' opinions infringed on corporations' "protected speech in a manner unjustified by a compelling state interest."

"SOME" being the operative word.

The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.

The court ruled the state can't prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech.

Since that does not violate the First Amendment, in what way is it opposite to original intent?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Show that they did.

The Tenth Amendment shows that the Framers did not intend the Congress to have the authority to muzzle speech by corporate entities.

Also, the Ninth Amendment has some words to say on that matter, too.
 
I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, so I don't really care how you categorize yourself.

It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".

So not only do you have trouble tracking the sentence structure of the first amendment, but you can't even come up with a sentence that tracks my initial point.

Got another one for you:

Congress passes a law to address traffic safety. The law says:

"Running red lights and failing to use turn signals are felonies; speeders who text while driving shall be executed."

Who does each of those clauses apply to?

Using your interpretation, the entire sentence only applies to speeders, because that is the only subject.

Looking at the plain language of the statute, the first two clauses apply to everyone, while the latter applies to speeders.
 
Back
Top Bottom