Do you believe corporations are people?

Someone made a law saying a corporation was considered a person therefore it should have all the rights (and none of the responsibilties) a person does.

Should a corporation be considered a person?

they're considered "legal persons"....they don't have all the rights though...like the right to marry or use contraception...lol...that's just a joke.

They can't marry either.

Maybe they should get tax breaks?

you want them to be treated as persons so that you can sue them (we don't want that to go "bye-bye").

Do you know any other person who is immune? (besides the chimp)

and the Asbestos fund legislation that was narrowly defeated last week...

they are making it go 'bye-bye' anyway.

Was your Professor saying they can ONLY be sued BECAUSE they have corporate personhood?

be sued.

It is a vehicle to be able to initiate the cause-of-action.

Do you disagree with that?

On edit: I certainly don't hate corporations, because I own one, and it is by virtue of its profits that I am able to donate and fund all of my progressive causes.

NOW, that having been said, I think the PROBLEM lies with huge, essentially-unregulated, multinational corporations, whose top executives receive obscene compensation, including boneses.

My lawyer friends have made it clear to me that there are enough laws on the books to regulate them, but the problem lies with lack of enforcement.

There's a special problem with these new laws, however, that expand immunities. Unfrickinbelievable!

since I am not a lawyer. Corporations have existed since the days we were a British Colony. I have no problem with them BUT some how in recent years are there are no protections for "We the People". IF we could have publicly funded elections where Corporate influence through donation and lobbyists were not controlling this country, it would be a major step in the right direction. Courts that allow Bankruptcy(re-organization) and elimination of pensions is a sin. Corporate officers of multi-nationals have to get the majority of their compensation in stock options. How did we get to the point where Officers don't own any of their companies they run, can make bad decisions with no consequences for themselves? The worst think that happens is they get fired with a multi-million dollar golden parachette....and show up in another company a few months later?

First of all, we have to more strictly enforce the laws (and I'm being too diplomatic there).

Secondly, we have to change the laws, no doubt.

Thirdly, we have to get the stockholders of these corporations to recognize how they are getting screwed!

Where were the Disney stockholders when THAT fiasco happened (at the onset)? Of course, I guess there was a group that tried to do something.

Ours is a small corporation, and all of the officers ARE owners; and that's what makes the small and typical corporation different from these huge, multinational monsters.

For years, my hubby and I have turned to each other and discussed our alarm about the rise in the compensation of these officers, and it has just gotten progressively worse to the point of total, incomprehensible absurdity.

It is definitely what progressives have to focus upon.

It is what I have been answering with when conservative acquaintances start talking about welfare abuse. For if we didn't have this kind of corporate abuse, and the huge corporate welfare going on (in the form of subsidies), we could afford medical care for all, in my humble opinion.

I'm not sure when it started, but I remember noticing abuses when I worked for the defense industry in the early 80's; it has gotten 1,000X worse since then!

I guess what I am saying is that I agree with the goal of greater regulation, I just want us to engage in much critical thinking about exactly how to achieve that goal.

talking about publicly traded multi-nationals. You and your hubby incorporated for tax/liability reasons. I am very socially liberal but I would support the inheritance tax ceiling to be raised to $10 Million. If you and hubby build a company your kids should be able to inherit it.You didn't get all the damn tax breaks that wal-mart gets. You built your company on sweat equity and I salute you for doing it. That was supposed to be what America's about!

Funny you should say "$10 Million," 'cause that's what I told my hubby I thought it should be already.

My hubby, although very liberal/progressive is not crazy about the estate tax; but I told him that I thought no one would object to raising the bar so that a middle-class/upper-middle-class couple who had fought to build something fairly could pass the money on (although I'm not sure Beloved Daughter is going to be ready to manage that well - but that's another story). The key is determing a fair bar, like you said, but there is NO excuse for what the Wal-Mart heirs received. Not only that, they are contributing to 'Progress for America' and the like, and terrorizing the rest of us with their absurd gains!

And I'm aware that you and other DUers mean 'mutinationals;' I just wanted to articulate it. I want to get my spiel straight for when I am in this discussion with rightwingers.

And yes, we took a WHOLE LOT of risk, worked crazy-hard, and made many sacrifices! It was worth it, though.

and have plenty of money for your 'golden years'.Damn Bushit..He wants an ownership society and doesn't do a damn thing for small business owners. The growth in the '90's was from small companies like yours. The MN's are dinosaurs that can't accomplish too much anymore.(Few exceptions)

have been nothing but trouble for awhile.

And I agree that is where the growth comes from - small corps.

My hubby was just saying that people who grew their corporations into huge entities, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the guy who owns Costco - many times they aren't the ones who get obscene compensation.

It is just the heartless impersonal new hires, who become CEO or something right off the bat, who often feel no connection to the company (and no connection to humanity I might add).

So I agree with you!

By the way, we aren't at $10M yet, but are doing pretty well let's just say. No matter what, I will always remember the struggle - it's like it is an integral part of me. The lessons have always been the important thing.

Trump's success. They did it from ground up and have employed thousands of people. It is the hired guns that have no financial connection to their success or failure that I resent. The compensations are now obscene. NO one should make 500X the lowest paid worker.

with a business being called a person. Its not a flesh and blood living thing so why should they get the smae rights as we do? Its like giving a block of salt the rights we have. Its corporate whoring at its worst.

Anything that a "corporation" does wrong is done by a person, so the person (ie the owner) should be sued, not the abstract legal construct that a corporation is.

I denounce them! Someone help me get the wood for a bonfire please.

corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

when they move to China?

Or get immunity from taxation?

Or get welfare to support their business, by the millions?


Ya see, no person gets such treatment. Why should they?

run with it.

Youre a smart one. Ive always liked yer posts.

to return the compliment. :blush:

HOW can a human person start and end it's existence and still be considered protected. Does that mean I can END a persons LIFE? It's illegal to END MY life!How can Corporations be TAXED at a different rate than ME? How can they NOT pay taxes at all?

Corporations can't vote( as ONE voice)( they get around this by donations & support...and evil lobbyist. The lobbyist doesn't represent ME but the coroporation.

Can the Corporation Bear arms?

the supreme court made a decision (that actually made no such assertion), and the SC clerk writing the summary of the decision erroneously wrote that this WAS part of the decision...so, what we have is a clerk writing the law of the land.

And the real crime of this case is that the clerk who wrote the summary had worked for Southern Pacific RR before the case came to court. Anyone believe he didn't maintane contact with the company?

So we have the situation where the entire nation labors under the curse of a falsehood written by a clerk who had a vested interest in the outcome of the case.

Here's a link to the
DECISION

if it was a clerical error, and one that apparently was created out of ill-intent due to vested interest, then it isn't something that can be defended via stare decisis, right?

hmm, can't we just contest this again and get it finally ruled out? anyone wanna create a start up corporation and get a friendly lawyer to sue? :D or would that be conspiracy? :evilgrin:

United States Extreme Corporate Court. That's the extent of my knowledge of it.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer. Some have said I'm not even legal. But that's their personal opinion.

to pay their damned taxes.

repeatedly commit capital offenses.

considering how many people Mr Enron ruined

Yes, I believe they're people.

People who should be shot.

but it is treated as a "person" to the extent it can sue and be sued, own property, etc. In other words, it can have a sort of financial personhood. But it's basically an abstraction that can act only through actual people. It's the real people who run the corporations, and the mindset they have, that's the problem. These days the average CEO earns 400 times as much (in salary and other compensation) as the average employee of that corporation. Boards of directors elect CEOs and determine their compensation, and since all of these guys are on each others' boards of directors, they are all scratching each others' backs and giving each other all kinds of goodies. Corporations themselves are morally neutral. The fact that they are run by greedy bastards and nobody is outraged enough to do anything about how corporations are run, is what's fucking everything up.

I know Catholics try to pass themselves off as the body of Christ, but no, these don't fit very well into the definition of a person.

You can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and you can sue the Catholic Church, too. Most organizations have the legal capacity to own property, conduct litigation, and do certain other financial and legal things individuals can do.

My understanding of corporations was that you incorporated so that any liabilities or other problems you encountered because of your business didn't extend into your personal life and assets. It's still not a person but a legal definition.

And calling a corporation or some other entity a "person" is only a way of describing what kind of legal rights they have. Those rights are generally limited by statute to various legal matters, mainly financial transactions and litigation. It really isn't accurate to say a corporation is a person because it isn't -- it's an abstraction that can act only through people. The greedy SOBs who run corporations, and who use their legal "personhood" as a way to exploit real people, are the problem.

or maybe like one of the early ideas tossed around that corporations have life limits, like 70 years or so, akin to "persons."

or make them mere abstractions and hold them to tighter standards. though that would complicate things. but aren't there other categories of entity with different legal rights? can't we use one of those?

the political will to do it isn't there. The corporate owners and CEOs have so much influence over politicians that there's no chance of passing laws that would restrict the ability of a corporation to make money for them.

well, i guess that settles it. i wonder when critical mass will get americans off their duff to do something? probably when their sofas and tvs are repossessed. such is modern life.
:evilgrin:

Organizations, corporate or otherwise, take on de facto "personhood" in as much as they assume the aggregate of the rights and responsiblities of its members.

Rather than bickering about the semantics of "personhood," it would be more productive to stop corporations from doing things like committing fraud or dumping toxic waste in our rivers, things that are completely independent of this "personhood" status.

If it can't date, fall in love, get married and maybe have children, no it's not a person.

:)

standing to Southern Pacific Railroad. (a private company) who was being sued by Santa Clara County, when Southern Pacific Rail laid tracks on public property without paying taxes for damage, repairs and maintence.

Southern Pacific Rail refused to pay the taxes, so Santa Clara county sued Pacific in court for damages and money owed. Southern Pacific Rail said they didn't need to pay based on equal protection as provided in the 14th Amendment.

And the Judge allowed that argument to stand, and ever since then Corporations have been able to USURP Constituitional authority OVER the rights and constitutional protections granted to ordinary Citizens.


see this link on Abolishing Corporate Personhood:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

here's link to Southern Pacific Rail story:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/santa_clara_vs_southern_pacific.html

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that "Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

with the exception of another case right around the turn of the 19th century, this later event is essentially how it all began from my understanding.

In any event, it's why we need to ABolish Corporate Personhood.

Rent or purchase the documentary film released a couple of years or so ago, called : "The Corporation"

http://www.thecorporation.com/

back during the robber baron days regarding this. With Roberts and Alito now established on the bench, expect to see many more decisions along these lines. Corporations will operate unfettered by legal contraints for the next 20-30 years.

relativism of liberals. Want all people to follow a strict set of rules or starve (if say they are ill or have bad luck or sign up for the army when there are no jobs for young men & women - because it is their fault there are no jobs - eh!). But people in corporations can act exactly how they want. Because they have jobs. So they are free to do whatever and take over whatever and go to war and diminish democracy and attack anything that gets in their way.

Seems - corporation is the kingdom of heaven.. if you are in management.

I think corporate personhood goes too far on some levels but is legitimate on others. I think corporations should have certain protections granted in the amendments but these protections have also been abused by the same corporations. I think there needs to be some sort of compromise altogether addressing these issues making the issues of corporate personhood a bit more balanced. The problem is corporations are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution or elsewhere, so when granted status of 'person' it is an all or nothing issue with the rights we are entitled to, they are now entitled to as well. I think an amendment needs to be created that does explicitly mention corporations that can then spell out what they do and don't have rights for. For example, regardless of how many out there would disagree with me, I do feel corporations should be proteced from warrantless searches and unannounced inspections, as we are. But I don't think they should be able to lobby and finance endlessly for political reasons based on free speech clauses.

There is definitely a need and substantial legitimacy of corporate personhood, but has been abused by the powerful to the degree that it is no longer about protection but more about having excuse to continue abuse. I don't think corporate personhood should be abolished, as it shouldn't be all or nothing. I think there just needs to be an amendment specifically for corporations which then could have the essence of corporate personhood but with the controls necessary to make sure they aren't abused outside of the intended spirit of the clause.

and if they were, they should all be institutionalized

if they are people, they are psychopathic people

and therefore a corporation is NOT a person.

This is getting really ridiculous! :grr:

...is like swimming with sharks. You want to keep an eye on them, and you need to be able to kill them when they turn on you-and they will, it's in their nature.

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

(Modern) "corporations are illegitimate institutions, they have no right to exist.
And their control is very fragile, they know it.
It’s in principal easy to dismantle them, they understand that.
A large part of the corporate effort to appear benevolent is to make sure that - you can read it in court decisions - "an aroused population will not take away their rights"".
-- Noam Chomsky


Why corporations (as they are now) are illegitimate institutions:

How it used to be

"In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation."

"In 1776 we declared independence not only from British rule, but also from the corporations of England that controlled trade and extracted wealth from the US (and other) colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country, we only allowed corporations to be chartered (licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a tool to gather investment and disperse financial liability in order to provide public goods, such as construction of roads, bridges or canals.
After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."


Then things changed

- Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
"One of the most severe blows to citizen authority was seeded in the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood", thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a private corporation was a natural person.
This meant that the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, (could be) used to grant corporations Constitutional rights. Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise."

- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889)
"Supreme Court rules a corporation is a "person" for both due process and equal protection."

"Of the 14th Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with African Americans, 288 dealt with corporations."

"Today, many U.S. corporations are transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. A new generation of American patriots is learning this hidden history and recognizing that it contains many keys to successful action today."

source: Reclaim Democracy
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
Corporate History Primer
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf


"..These state laws, many of which remain on the books today.."

Also see the documentary "The Corporation" (www.thecorporation.com) for more on the history and the impacts of corporations, and a few examples of succesful use of "these state laws" in civil action to limit the power of corporations.

well, maybe not everything . . . but it's a good start . . .

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

"Corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn."

Corporations, civilization; no difference.

I believe sociopaths are people too. Just not very good ones.