Corporate Personhood

NeverAmI

NeverAmI

Satisclassifaction
Retired Staff
MBTI
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Just curious who knows this term and who has an opinion.

Corporate personhood affords corporations certain legal rights that are only granted to a 'person' in the constitution and bill of rights. Santa Clara vs Pacific Railroad was where corporations were first deemed a person.

A couple of the rights granted include contributing to political campaigns and suing other individuals.
 
I can see any business requiring a degree of protection, otherwise our economy suffers from people being afraid to either start or invest in businesses.

On the other hand I do not like the concept of politicians getting their pockets filled with money from corporations, obviously their decisions are only in the corporations interests from that point on and in my opinion consideration should be given equally to all those a public official represents.

I can't remember who mentioned this but it was a comedian. If this lobbying system continues our representatives in government should have to wear a patch for every contributor, that way at least we know who in the hell we're voting for.
 
Just recently I discussed how our future politicians will wear jumpsuits similar to the nascar drivers.

ahh, here we go!

56658852.jpg
 
Gonna need to smack the TV bud picture isn't coming through :/
 
Yeah they really should be branded. Maybe it'll make some of them shape up, or it'll just get the gov't buildings covered in ads, which is probably a more American cultural thing than the government itself.
 
The best news is that pretty soon we can just cut the middle man out. We won't need politicians, Mickey Mouse and the lot over at Disney will be the rightful rulers of the nation.

And you thought people were kidding when they wrote in Mickey Mouse on the ballot--
 
The documentary 'the corporation' goes into the issue of corporate personhood

It also gets an FBI profiler to profile a corporation (as an entity)....he decides that it is psycopathic

There are also fascistic overtones to corporate history
 
muir said:
The documentary 'the corporation' goes into the issue of corporate personhood
Click to expand...

Surprisingly I hadn't heard of this one. I will check it out!
 
Corporations ought to be subject to psych evaluations like they are individuals then too.
 
Dragon said:
Corporations ought to be subject to psych evaluations like they are individuals then too.
Click to expand...

Death penalty/jail equivalency too!
 
I'm going to revive this after watching "The Corporation" last night. Scary stuff!

Also sad that they would used the 14th amendment (ya know, that one that freed slaves and allowed them the same rights as other people) to push their way into "personhood". According to the documentary, there was something like 288 cases brought before the Supreme Court that were corporations pushing for their rights and only about 19 African-Americans making their case before the court.

Also explains why the modern corporation is the beast it is. Next president that has my vote is the one that withdraws the rights of a corporation as a "person". You'll see businesses take a really sharp turn if that were to ever happen!

And if you haven't watched that film, I won't give it away but they do give the corporation a Psych Evaluation. :)
 
I have very mixed feelings about corporations. I think it's important to remember that corporations are really just groups of people focused on giving a service or providing a product. Most jobs are created by corporations.

But the development of the notion of corporation as an entity has a past that I'm morally uncomfortable with. Basically, Jewish law prohibits Jews from asking interest on a loan to another Jew. In addition to that, all loans were forgiven every seventh year. The rabbis argued that good people who needed loan money to start a business or keep the farm weren't getting the assistance they needed because of these restrictions. They decided to get around the usery laws by saying they only applied to loans given to individuals, not "corporations." A Jew can charge interest of a corporation, even if its owners are Jews, and the debt doesn't vanish during the sabbatical year. Yikes. This is one of the most well intentioned but awful turning points in history.
 
Etymologically speaking, a "person" (or "persona") is a mask. Specifically, it is the kind that would be worn in a Greek Tragedy. (I had always heard that it comes from "per," meaning through, and the "sonus," meaning sound, but when I double checked the etymology online it said it it thought to come from the Etruscan word "phersu" meaning mask.) The term for the actor wearing such a mask is where we get the word hypocrite.

In the Latin version of the bible, persona was used to translate the word "prosopon," meaning face. Specific instances that come to mind are the commandments not to be respecters of persons. (This is used a a sense very different from the Kantian one, because person he refers to one's status rather than individuality.) God was describes as being three persons before the word person came into common use as referring to an individual.

People is not the plural of Person. It is an unrelated word that denotes a nation or ethic group. It is not a plural word at all.

Corporations are persons in that they are the public face or mask used by a group. They are not people. They are not individuals, and not souls. They are only a useful legal fiction.


It seems really bizarre to grant corporate persons 14th amendment rights, considering that the amendment begins with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Corporations are neither born nor naturalized, but rather chartered. Furthermore, it does not state that States cannot make laws abridging the laws and privileges of persons in general, but rather of Citizens.The only part of section one that could be construed as applying to corporations (or aliens visiting the country) is the equal protection clause, which begs the question: equal to what? to other how local corporations are treated? to how the same corporations are treated elsewhere?

Limited liability protections are without question privileges granted by the government. Since corporations are not citizens, a plain reading of the 14th amendment would not require states to honor such corporate privileges.

It also seems inconsistent not to count corporate persons in the apportionment of delegates to congress.

14th amendment said:
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...
It was actually the progressives that fought to grant corporate personhood. Conservatives of the time opposed it. Corporations were seem as a step towards socialism, where capital was jointly owned by labors (well, shareholders who might include laborers) rather than just a few wealthy capitalists. Corporate rights were also seen as greatly benefiting Labor Unions.


@GracieRuth
Actually, I am pretty sure that a significant majority of jobs are still provided by sole proprietorships and partnerships. Corporations have many more employees than any individual, but individuals still outnumber them enough to make up for this.

Shouldn't all the debts vanish anyway every sabbath of sabbath years (the year of jubilee) though? Corporations don't let you get around that, do they?
 
Last edited:
GracieRuth said:
I have very mixed feelings about corporations. I think it's important to remember that corporations are really just groups of people focused on giving a service or providing a product. Most jobs are created by corporations.

But the development of the notion of corporation as an entity has a past that I'm morally uncomfortable with. Basically, Jewish law prohibits Jews from asking interest on a loan to another Jew. In addition to that, all loans were forgiven every seventh year. The rabbis argued that good people who needed loan money to start a business or keep the farm weren't getting the assistance they needed because of these restrictions. They decided to get around the usery laws by saying they only applied to loans given to individuals, not "corporations." A Jew can charge interest of a corporation, even if its owners are Jews, and the debt doesn't vanish during the sabbatical year. Yikes. This is one of the most well intentioned but awful turning points in history.
Click to expand...

I feel like there is a bunch missing here.

Is there a special Jew box that can be checked so that loans will be forgiven that seventh year? Or are we not talking about banks at all? Or maybe not in America? Because from my understanding a regular person can't charge interest on loans (legally).
 
I think it's alright for corporations to be people as long as the disadvantages of being an individual come alone with those advantages. This seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.
 
Sali said:
I think it's alright for corporations to be people as long as the disadvantages of being an individual come alone with those advantages. This seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.
Click to expand...

But that's where the problem lies. Since corporations have achieved "personhood" status, individual responsibility has been almost entirely removed from their officers. The individuals on the top are still held accountable for their individual actions as people, but if the corporation does something wrong, it can't simply be charged and serve jail time.

In fact, the only thing a corporation is legally required to do is earn a profit and criminal charges against corporations only come about when that responsibility is overlooked or altered - Enron and all of those for example. Look at BP and the recent oil spill. Individuals at the company may have been fired or disciplined within the company, but legally, they were all sheltered from criminal prosecution.

So in one sense you have this group of people who want to be classified as a single "person" awarding them all the rights as a person has, but you have no single accountability for that way that "person" acts. Put that all together and, as that documentary also states, the clinical definition for that type of person is "Psychopath". So, in essence all the people in favor of "big business" as it stands, are all saying they support psychopathic behavior as a norm.

Wonderful world we created, huh?
 
Sali said:
I think it's alright for corporations to be people as long as the disadvantages of being an individual come alone with those advantages. This seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.
Click to expand...

How do you propose sending a corporation to jail ?
 
magister:
This was exactly my point, that by creating a new category called corporations, debts would not have to be forgiven during the sabbatical year or year of Jubilee.

Uber:
To the best of my knowledge, it is perfectly legal for any individual to loan money and charge interest. The following website offers advice on how to create a proper Promisary Note when you lend to family or friends, including interst.

However, most of us would agree that the rules change when it's family. I've received loans from relatives and they never charged me interest. And yes, an observant Jew has a figurative "Jew checkbox" since we are a kinship group and treat fellow Jews as family. This is why there are organizations like the Jewish Free Loan Association, Jewish Free Loan, etc.

What is ironic is that the whole point of creating the idea of a corporation was so a business entity would NOT be a person, and therefore not bound by laws governing persons. Now it seems the whole fiasco has come full circle. What a terrible mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top