The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter contracts. It can also sue and be sued and held liable under both civil and criminal law. As well, because the corporation is legally considered the "person," individual shareholders are not legally responsible for the corporation's debts and damages beyond their investment in the corporation. Similarly, individual employees, managers, and directors are liable for their own malfeasance or lawbreaking while acting on behalf of the corporation, but are not generally liable for the corporation's actions.

From a corporate personhood standpoint, it's the only important issue.

It's wrong, but it is the legal precedent.

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question of whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.

We are all of the opinion that it does."

IOW: "the provision in the 14th amendment which forbids a state to deny any person of equal protection applies to corporations."

IOW, the SC assumes corporations have the rights of persons under the constitution.

Law says the same:

1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

require them to be legal persons.

but they have granted the rights of personhood to them.

If they are granted all the rights of persons then they enjoy such a legal status even though no one conjured a legal construct into sentient flesh and blood.

You are going on about a distinction without any functional difference under the law other than lack of accountability, expectation of loyalty to the country, and if they are big ones a pass on taxes.

Hell, they have more access to rights than some sentient, living humans as they have long been free to "marry"/legally merge forever.

"rights," but not legal personhood?

how does that work, mr constitutional expert?

It's quoted in the first reply to you.

I have an ex-boyfriend like you. He said, "You asked if I was sleeping with anyone. I wasn't sleeping with her. I was just fucking her. That wasn't what you asked."

Dot your i and cross that t. Parse those words. Pick that nit.

Booooyahhhhhhhhhhhh!

"All over the Southwest you've got these businessmen. They were making money when everyone was making money. They think they're smart. And now they're hurting. When the price of oil fell, so did they. They've still got money. But they need more money. When the oil money was good they put up all these office buildings. Now they're half empty. They'll give you anything to move in: first two months free, redecoration, whatever you want." (emphasis added)

the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court noted in dicta in a headnote that corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote — not part of the opinion — the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

It does not say that corporations are literally persons. Probably because they are not.

Is that something that was said to you or are you intending to mock someone in particular?

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently there are some here for whom it is acceptable to be blatantly racist and dismissive of all things not conservative.

Took me about 2 min of going through his posts to find it over and over.

is just fine, so there ya go. So, on to the next topic.

"An aggregate corporation, at common law, is a collection of individuals, united into one collective body under a special name and possessing certain immunities, privileges and capacities in its collective character which do not belong to the natural persons composing it. Among other things, it possesses the capacity of perpetual succession, and of acting by the collected vote or will of its component members, and of suing and being sued in all things touching its corporate rights and duties. It is, in short, an artificial person, existing in contemplation of law and endowed with certain powers and franchises which, though they must be exercised through the medium of its natural members, are yet considered as subsisting in the corporation itself as distinctly as if it were a real personage." - Majority Opinion by John Marshall.

Direct hit. Perhaps they could adopt children too, and get married.

What really matters or course, is whether they are entiitled to the rights of human beings ("human rights&quot and the rights and immunities of citizens under the Constitution, and the answer seems to be "Yes, when the USSC says so." Whereas I would say they have the rights and powers granted under their state charters, no more, no less.

Another astute person mentioned that upthread....

Look at Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific.

A idiot wrote "corporate personhood" on a memo and lipped on it. Somehow it got the idea that corporate are people.

That has been the right-wing meme for the last 100 years.

Corporations do not breathe, and they are not a person.

Therefore, corporate personhood does not exist.

If corporations are people, then every corporation operating in the United States and currently screwing the poor are easily indictable for RICO.

Must be private. In the real Idaho, corporations have the rights of natural persons, just as everywhere else in the union.

RBPrivateIdaho: there, I fixed it for ya.

In Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 2012 WL 2052405 *11 (Iowa 2012)(numerous citation omitted), that Court unequivocally stated that "[c]orporations are persons for the purposes of equal protection." So yes, at least one court has said "corporations are persons".

You seem to be equivocating now. I probably wouldn't have taken the time to get you a court quote had you not made that "people just sound stupid" remark. Corporate personhood is a very complicated and controversial subject mired in some historic controversy. The more it is understood, and believe me I am no expert, the better equipped folks can be in understanding and dealing with Citizens United.

Your powers of logic and literacy are no deterrent against the troll's habit of beating off in public.