Alright, kalm and IvyTalk...

[Grizalltheway]

Time to duke it out over this one, courtesy of our friends at HuffPo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 05244.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Hmmm. My wife and I are going out to dinner with dbackjon tonight. Maybe he'll give me some ideas!

[kalm]

Good article and i think i posted a similar one from Thom Hartmann a while back. But now you're asking me, a mediocre rec management student from a lowly directional school to take on an ivy educated lawyer? Hardly seems fair.

So Ivy, quick question. Ask the framers, ask the average person on the street with any common sense, ask yourself - is a corporation the same as a human being?

[Ivytalk]

Good article and i think i posted a similar one from Thom Hartmann a while back. But now you're asking me, a mediocre rec management student from a lowly directional school to take on an ivy educated lawyer? Hardly seems fair.

So Ivy, quick question. Ask the framers, ask the average person on the street with any common sense, ask yourself - is a corporation the same as a human being?

Did you ever see the movie Groundhog Day, kalm? That's what this "debate" seems like. You've misstated the question: it's not "human being," it's "person." A juridical entity with attendant rights and obligations, like the power to enter into -- and be bound by -- contracts, and potential criminal liability as well. Corporations, acting as they must through their agents ( directors and executive officers), take positions on public issues all the time. Ever read a proxy statement of a public company involving shareholder resolutions on the environment, executive pay, and energy policy? The HuffPo piece is a cleverly assembled quilt of straw men.

Anyway, I'll take some time to investigate the "merits" of the Justice Field argument when I get back to my office. And by the way, I've represented corporations with more "heart" than some of the posters on this board. Yourself excluded, of course.

[dbackjon]

Interesting the battle - the socialist vs the capitalist - but who is who?

[Ivytalk]

Interesting the battle - the socialist vs the capitalist - but who is who?

Exactly! I'd better ask Jon Huntsman to weigh in on that one!

[dbackjon]

Interesting the battle - the socialist vs the capitalist - but who is who?

Exactly! I'd better ask Jon Huntsman to weigh in on that one!

[CitadelGrad]

Good article and i think i posted a similar one from Thom Hartmann a while back. But now you're asking me, a mediocre rec management student from a lowly directional school to take on an ivy educated lawyer? Hardly seems fair.

So Ivy, quick question. Ask the framers, ask the average person on the street with any common sense, ask yourself - is a corporation the same as a human being?

No, and it seems a fetus isn't either.

[Pwns]

Corporations aren't people.

Neither are unions, defense contractors, firms that make a ton of money off of the drug war and the prison system, or environmental groups either. Cut off all special interests from elections.

[OL FU]

"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."


That was a good one

[Grizalltheway]

Corporations aren't people.

Neither are unions, defense contractors, firms that make a ton of money off of the drug war and the prison system, or environmental groups either. Cut off all special interests from elections.

Bingo!

[kalm]

Good article and i think i posted a similar one from Thom Hartmann a while back. But now you're asking me, a mediocre rec management student from a lowly directional school to take on an ivy educated lawyer? Hardly seems fair.

So Ivy, quick question. Ask the framers, ask the average person on the street with any common sense, ask yourself - is a corporation the same as a human being?

Did you ever see the movie Groundhog Day, kalm? That's what this "debate" seems like. You've misstated the question: it's not "human being," it's "person." A juridical entity with attendant rights and obligations, like the power to enter into -- and be bound by -- contracts, and potential criminal liability as well. Corporations, acting as they must through their agents ( directors and executive officers), take positions on public issues all the time. Ever read a proxy statement of a public company involving shareholder resolutions on the environment, executive pay, and energy policy? The HuffPo piece is a cleverly assembled quilt of straw men.

Anyway, I'll take some time to investigate the "merits" of the Justice Field argument when I get back to my office. And by the way, I've represented corporations with more "heart" than some of the posters on this board. Yourself excluded, of course.

A classic case of being too smart for your own good. Quit lawyering, answer the question, and remember it's the 99% of crappy attorneys that give the rest a bad name.

[Ivytalk]

"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."


That was a good one

The state can "kill" a corporation by voiding its charter if it doesn't pay its annual franchise tax.

[kalm]

"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."


That was a good one

The state can "kill" a corporation by voiding its charter if it doesn't pay its annual franchise tax.

And how often does that happen?

[Ivytalk]

Did you ever see the movie Groundhog Day, kalm? That's what this "debate" seems like. You've misstated the question: it's not "human being," it's "person." A juridical entity with attendant rights and obligations, like the power to enter into -- and be bound by -- contracts, and potential criminal liability as well. Corporations, acting as they must through their agents ( directors and executive officers), take positions on public issues all the time. Ever read a proxy statement of a public company involving shareholder resolutions on the environment, executive pay, and energy policy? The HuffPo piece is a cleverly assembled quilt of straw men


Anyway, I'll take some time to investigate the "merits" of the Justice Field argument when I get back to my office. And by the way, I've represented corporations with more "heart" than some of the posters on this board. Yourself excluded, of course.

A classic case of being too smart for your own good. Quit lawyering, answer the question, and remember it's the 99% of crappy attorneys that give the rest a bad name.

It's a bogus and misleading question. Legal persons include, but are not limited to, human beings ("natural persons").
They also include corporations, LLCs and partnerships ("artificial persons"). Artificial persons can own property, sue and be sued, contract, and do any kind of business that their charters allow. In short, they have rights and obligations. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

[kalm]

A classic case of being too smart for your own good. Quit lawyering, answer the question, and remember it's the 99% of crappy attorneys that give the rest a bad name.

It's a bogus and misleading question. Legal persons include, but are not limited to, human beings ("natural persons").
They also include corporations, LLCs and partnerships ("artificial persons"). Artificial persons can own property, sue and be sued, contract, and do any kind of business that their charters allow. In short, they have rights and obligations. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Your lack of common sense astounds me. I suppose you think money is the same as speech!

[Ivytalk]

The state can "kill" a corporation by voiding its charter if it doesn't pay its annual franchise tax.

And how often does that happen?

In Delaware, it's a very long list each year. We execute lots more corporations than Texas does people.

[kalm]

And how often does that happen?

In Delaware, it's a very long list each year. We execute lots more corporations than Texas does people.

That's encouraging.

Do you think Louisiana should charge BP with manslaughter? How about an estate tax for when corporations die?

[Ivytalk]

It's a bogus and misleading question. Legal persons include, but are not limited to, human beings ("natural persons").
They also include corporations, LLCs and partnerships ("artificial persons"). Artificial persons can own property, sue and be sued, contract, and do any kind of business that their charters allow. In short, they have rights and obligations. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Your lack of common sense astounds me. I suppose you think money is the same as speech!

Just one more absurd analogy, and I won't continue my patient tutorial of such an obstinate student. Political speech is facilitated by money, and you know it. This is degenerating into just the sort of exchange that I predicted, and this will be my last post in the thread until I can get back and fact-check the HuffPo piece. Actually, JoltinJoe is a fine student of the Constitution, and he may have a ready response.

[kalm]

Your lack of common sense astounds me. I suppose you think money is the same as speech!

Just one more absurd analogy, and I won't continue my patient tutorial of such an obstinate student. Political speech is facilitated by money, and you know it. This is degenerating into just the sort of exchange that I predicted, and this will be my last post in the thread until I can get back and fact-check the HuffPo piece. Actually, JoltinJoe is a fine student of the Constitution, and he may have a ready response.

Does the constitution use the term "legal persons"?

[dbackjon]

"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."


That was a good one

The state can "kill" a corporation by voiding its charter if it doesn't pay its annual franchise tax.

Posting from the train?

[Baldy]

The state can "kill" a corporation by voiding its charter if it doesn't pay its annual franchise tax.

And how often does that happen?

I do it quite often.

[JohnStOnge]

A corporation at the very least is composed of persons. But this repsonse is mostly to deal with a side issue raised by this quote from the linked article:

The Louisiana Legislature, then controlled by a majority coalition of African Americans and white Reconstructionists known as "Radical Republicans," had passed a law insisting that all butchers move their business south of New Orleans, so the butchers' entrails didn't pollute the city's water supply. The Court upheld the law, and the city's pattern of repeated cholera outbreaks stopped cold. Field argued, however, that it was a corporation's God-given right to dump pig intestines wherever it saw fit, regardless of the public health consequences or laws on the books.

It is very unlikely that the referenced cholera outbreaks were caused by butchers dumping entrails into waters north of New Orleans. Classic epidemic cholera is associated with human sewage. I don't know if there has ever been a case of animal to human transmission unless you consider eating seafood contaminated by human sewage to be animal to human transmission.

There are also environmental strains of cholera that can be transmitted via seafood consumption.

But you're not going to get cholera outbreaks because people are dumping animal entrails into the water.

[kalm]

A corporation at the very least is composed of persons. But this repsonse is mostly to deal with a side issue raised by this quote from the linked article:

The Louisiana Legislature, then controlled by a majority coalition of African Americans and white Reconstructionists known as "Radical Republicans," had passed a law insisting that all butchers move their business south of New Orleans, so the butchers' entrails didn't pollute the city's water supply. The Court upheld the law, and the city's pattern of repeated cholera outbreaks stopped cold. Field argued, however, that it was a corporation's God-given right to dump pig intestines wherever it saw fit, regardless of the public health consequences or laws on the books.

It is very unlikely that the referenced cholera outbreaks were caused by butchers dumping entrails into waters north of New Orleans. Classic epidemic cholera is associated with human sewage. I don't know if there has ever been a case of animal to human transmission unless you consider eating seafood contaminated by human sewage to be animal to human transmission.

There are also environmental strains of cholera that can be transmitted via seafood consumption.

But you're not going to get cholera outbreaks because people are dumping animal entrails into the water.

Well gersh, feel free to dump away then.

[JohnStOnge]

Well gersh, feel free to dump away then.

Think about how many dead animal carcasses end up in any watershed even under circumstances completely devoid of human activity. Think about how much animal fecal waste goes into any watershed. People contain their wastes. Animals don't. Every bird you see, every squirrel, every rat, every dog, every cat, every coyote, etc., is a source of fecal waste. Then there are all the cold blooded animals, including fish, that carry Salmonella as well as other things.

The idea that stopping butchers from having businesses north or New Orleans significantly decreased the disease hazard is ridiculous.