Corporations: Still Not People

[kalm]

Activist judges...

Alito's stirring defense of corporations, of course, builds on that applied by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Citizens United, which was itself amplified by a paean to corporations delivered in a separate opinion and partial dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia—in which he asserted, remarkably, how much the Founding Fathers (other than Thomas Jefferson) loved corporations. In both cases, a corporate charter—the idea that these are separate, artificial entities created for narrow and specific purposes—is ignored, dismissed, or downplayed in the desire to equate corporations with individuals in granting rights. To Alito, corporations are collections of individuals, and deserve all the protections the individuals in the collective have. Of course, missing from his collective are the employees of the corporation.

Here is the textbook legal definition of a corporation: an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Why are for-profit corporations set up? The characterization tells us: to make profits. And the corporate charter has multiple benefits that go way beyond those of individuals. There are major tax benefits unavailable to individuals. There are stringent legal protections from liability unavailable to individuals.

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/373889/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

Activist judges...

They are only activist when they rule against you.

[kalm]

Activist judges...

They are only activist when they rule against you.

Sssssshhhhh.

[JohnStOnge]

Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

[BlueHen86]

Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

Semantics are like activist judges, they only matter when they disagree with you. You don't mind relying on semantics when discussing gay marriage.

[kalm]

Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

The correct way to phrase the question would be is a corporation a person…which of course it isn't. At one point, corporations were chartered to serve the benefits of the society at large, not just those who formed or controlled them.

The other question is who comprises the corporation? The shareholders, the managers, the workers? What

[GannonFan]

The other question is who comprises the corporation? The shareholders, the managers, the workers? What

Yes.

[houndawg]

Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

[CID1990]

Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

[houndawg]

If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

slap on the wrist.

[kalm]

If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

How often do they get charged with manslaughter? Can bring the entire group...shareholders, officers, and workers to trial? How many of these corporations are doing time?

[kalm]

The other question is who comprises the corporation? The shareholders, the managers, the workers? What

Yes.

Now...apply that to the Hobby Lobby case.

[CID1990]

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

How often do they get charged with manslaughter? Can bring the entire group...shareholders, officers, and workers to trial? How many of these corporations are doing time?

keep trying taibbi

[kalm]

How often do they get charged with manslaughter? Can bring the entire group...shareholders, officers, and workers to trial? How many of these corporations are doing time?

keep trying taibbi

Hey, you seem awfully confused by all of this. Just trying to help you work through it, Grover.

[JoltinJoe]

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/373889/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's because specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. It is within those penumbras, formed by emanations from those specific guarantees, that you can find the protections extended to money and corporations.

[kalm]

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/373889/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's because specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. It is within those penumbras, formed by emanations from those specific guarantees, that you can find the protections extended to money and corporations.

For example?

[kalm]

While awaiting your response, a couple of few from the founders on the topic...

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
– Thomas Jefferson.

“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [...] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
– James Madison

It sounds like it would take a constitutional amendment to convince some people that corporations are not in fact people and that money is not in fact speech.

[JoltinJoe]

That's because specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. It is within those penumbras, formed by emanations from those specific guarantees, that you can find the protections extended to money and corporations.

For example?

I think you missed my point.

Read Griswold v. Ct.

[CID1990]

corporations are not in fact people and that money is not in fact speech.

well arent we full of ourselves today

people spend money on advertising- thats speech

closely held corporations are under control of their owners and those owners do not have to be compelled to abandon their religious faith in order to do business

but please continue to whine about it maybe reality will change for you

[BlueHen86]

corporations are not in fact people and that money is not in fact speech.

well arent we full of ourselves today

people spend money on advertising- thats speech

closely held corporations are under control of their owners and those owners do not have to be compelled to abandon their religious faith in order to do business

but please continue to whine about it maybe reality will change for you

I agree with that. If you have a job that offers benefits, you should be able to afford birth control if you really need it.

I'm not convinced that corporations are people, but in this specific case, I do agree with the part in bold.

[kalm]

well arent we full of ourselves today

people spend money on advertising- thats speech

closely held corporations are under control of their owners and those owners do not have to be compelled to abandon their religious faith in order to do business

but please continue to whine about it maybe reality will change for you

I agree with that. If you have a job that offers benefits, you should be able to afford birth control if you really need it.

I'm not convinced that corporations are people, but in this specific case, I do agree with the part in bold.

As do I, and stated as much in the other thread. Still...corporations are not people. It's dopey to argue otherwise.

[Chizzang]

I agree with that. If you have a job that offers benefits, you should be able to afford birth control if you really need it.

I'm not convinced that corporations are people, but in this specific case, I do agree with the part in bold.

As do I, and stated as much in the other thread. Still...corporations are not people. It's dopey to argue otherwise.

Corporations are NOT people.. but are endowed with more rights and less accountability
(Imagine that) Why would it be that way you might ask yourself...?

First you must find motive... who would be motivated to endow corporations with MORE rights and LESS accountability - who could possibly gain advantage from that...?


gee I can't even guess...?

[kalm]

As do I, and stated as much in the other thread. Still...corporations are not people. It's dopey to argue otherwise.

Corporations are NOT people.. but are endowed with more rights and less accountability
(Imagine that) Why would it be that way you might ask yourself...?

First you must find motive... who would be motivated to endow corporations with MORE rights and LESS accountability - who could possibly gain advantage from that...?


gee I can't even guess...?

The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

[Chizzang]

Corporations are NOT people.. but are endowed with more rights and less accountability
(Imagine that) Why would it be that way you might ask yourself...?

First you must find motive... who would be motivated to endow corporations with MORE rights and LESS accountability - who could possibly gain advantage from that...?


gee I can't even guess...?

The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

Agreed,
The founders were looking to empower the individual

[kalm]

The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

Agreed,
The founders were looking to empower the individual

So it wasn't the founding fathers. Perhaps it was people of entrenched wealth?

(Don't tell the conks this as they are all for competition)