Are corporations people?

[iustitia]

Lot of butthurt over the Citizens United decision still present, and just as much dickriding of big business by corporatists. Are corporations people and does their money equate to free speech?

My understanding is that the notion of corporate personhood is an entirely Americam concept and a relatively new phenomena that originates with the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision.

[Safety]

As soon as you can give a lethal injection or other capital punishment to one, then I'll see them as people.

[zelmo1234]

Are unions people? That would be another good question.

Using Safety's definition I don't believe that they would qualify either.

[GrassrootsConservative]

They're certainly not comprised of ducks.

I'd say corporations are people in the same way that nations and states are people.

/Edit: "We the people."

[Common]

Are unions people? That would be another good question.

Using Safety's definition I don't believe that they would qualify either.

Union and corporations are exactly opposite

[GrassrootsConservative]

cor·po·ra·tion

ˌkôrpəˈrāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: corporation; plural noun: corporations

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.


un·ion
ˈyo͞onyən/
noun
noun: union; plural noun: unions; noun: Union
1.
the action or fact of joining or being joined, especially in a political context.
"he was opposed to closer political or economic union with Europe"


synonyms:
unification (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+unification&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q_SowAA), uniting, joining, merging, merger (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+merger&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ_SowAA), fusion (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+fusion&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), fusing, amalgamation (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+amalgamation&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQ_SowAA), coalition (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+coalition&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ_SowAA), combination (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+combination&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQ_SowAA), synthesis (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+synthesis&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ_SowAA), blend (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&q=define+blend&sa=X&ei=W0YGVerBCIGegwSmwoPwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ_SowAA), blending, mingling; More








So there we have it. Corporations are people, unions not so much. A union seems like a much more abstract and aimless idea.

[zelmo1234]

Union and corporations are exactly opposite

I am listening explain How?

[Crepitus]

For political purposes neither corporations nor unions should be considered to be people.

People are people. One person, one vote, one say each, equal influence for each person.

[Chloe]

A corporation is just that, a corporation, it's not a person or people it's brick, mortar, paper, systems, etc with the intent of making wealth and products. People can obviously work for/within a corporation but they (corporations) should not be treated or considered as "people". It's funny, there are a ton of people out there that scoff at any attempt to anthropomorphize another animal but are perfectly fine doing it for a corporation. People are people and corporations are corporations.

[GrassrootsConservative]

A corporation is just that, a corporation, it's not a person or people it's brick, mortar, paper, systems, etc with the intent of making wealth and products. People can obviously work for/within a corporation but they (corporations) should not be treated or considered as "people". It's funny, there are a ton of people out there that scoff at any attempt to anthropomorphize another animal but are perfectly fine doing it for a corporation. People are people and corporations are corporations.

Going by the definition a corporation is a group of people. So there's that. America is people too.

[Chloe]

Going by the definition a corporation is a group of people. So there's that. America is people too.

Yes a corporation is made up of a collection of people working for a common goal, right? The people within the corporation are in fact people, but the corporation is not a person.

[Common]

Yes a corporation is made up of a collection of people working for a common goal, right? The people within the corporation are in fact people, but the corporation is not a person.

Corporations are created to enable people to work within it. The corporation is not a person.

[Chloe]

Corporations are created to enable people to work within it. The corporation is not a person.

Exactly. It's like saying a school is people, no, it's just a building that is attended by people and funded by people. A corporation is just a building, a letterhead, a logo, etc, it's not a person.

[GrassrootsConservative]

What would that corporation or school be without people? That's like saying the human body is not cells. Without the smaller particles the whole would not exist.

[Chloe]

What would that corporation or school be without people? That's like saying the human body is not cells. Without the smaller particles the whole would not exist.

People would still exist without corporations or schools but corporations and schools wouldn't exist without people because they are human creations. To say they are equal to you or I is lessoning your own value as a living creature in my opinion.

[GrassrootsConservative]

People would still exist without corporations or schools but corporations and schools wouldn't exist without people because they are human creations. To say they are equal to you or I is lessoning your own value as a living creature in my opinion.

See and I feel like saying they are not people is dehumanizing them and the people involved with them.

[Chloe]

See and I feel like saying they are not people is dehumanizing them and the people involved with them.

You can't dehumanize something that isn't human. A corporation is not human it is just made up of humans working for it to produce material.

[iustitia]

The question is not if corporations are important, but whether they are people.

[Chloe]

The question is not if corporations are important, but whether they are people.

People are humans, a corporation is an object created by and sustained by humans. In my opinion saying that a structure with a logo attached to it is "people" is basically changing the definition of what it means to be a living breathing person or group of people. 100,000 people under a blue sky are still 100,000 people, but to say that 100,000 people under the roof of a building with a logo above the door are people but also inside of "people" is just silly to me.

[Bob]

As soon as you can give a lethal injection or other capital punishment to one, then I'll see them as people.

We can't sue a table or a chair or a kids swing. We can sue corporations. By law, they are treated the way people are treated.

If you want to give up being able to sue them, treat them as you might an used car.

[PolWatch]

nope:
NOUNplural noun: people




human beings in general or considered collectively:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
synonyms: human beings (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+human+beings) · persons (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+persons) · individuals (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+individuals) · humans (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+humans) · mortals (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+mortals) ·

[Bob]

People are humans, a corporation is an object created by and sustained by humans. In my opinion saying that a structure with a logo attached to it is "people" is basically changing the definition of what it means to be a living breathing person or group of people. 100,000 people under a blue sky are still 100,000 people, but to say that 100,000 people under the roof of a building with a logo above the door are people but also inside of "people" is just silly to me.

Those not seeing the people aspect of corporations see it as humans when it is not that at all. It is that you treat corporations as humans for lawful purposes.

If Corporations were treated as objects, you could never take one to court and obtain awards.

You can't sue my car if it hits you. Corporations must be treated as people to deal with them by law.

Matter of fact, this is in the Business law course.

[Bob]

nope:
NOUNplural noun: people



human beings in general or considered collectively:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
synonyms: human beings (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+human+beings) · persons (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+persons) · individuals (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+individuals) · humans (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+humans) · mortals (http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+mortals) ·


Corporations are not humans. The term people is simply the wrong way to see them. They are treated like people, not that they are humans. It's in Business law courses.

[Bob]

You can't dehumanize something that isn't human. A corporation is not human it is just made up of humans working for it to produce material.

For giggles, assume you are correct.

Explain then since corporations are this object, how can you sue one in a court of law?

Can you sue a tractor?

[Bob]

Union and corporations are exactly opposite

Both are corporations.

[Cthulhu]

Corporations are created to enable people to work within it. The corporation is not a person.
It is a legal "person" though.

A legal fiction in the purest sense.

Spend some time in a law library, you'll be amazed at the legal chicanery allowed in 'merica.

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

We can't sue a table or a chair or a kids swing. We can sue corporations. By law, they are treated the way people are treated.

If you want to give up being able to sue them, treat them as you might an used car.
Sort of. The government can sue property via asset forfeiture based of the ludicrous doctrine that property can now commit crime because it was involved.

No joke. Crazy stuff.

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

[Green Arrow]

A corporation is made up of people in the same way a nation is made up of people. GrassrootsConservative is correct on that account. Where the disconnect happens is that being "made up" of people does not make you a person. In fact, by definition you wouldn't be a person, just a group of people.

So to answer the question, no, a corporation is not a person. It's an artificial business entity created and run by people, but it is not itself a person. It can't vote, it can't speak, it can't breathe, it can't think. It is not sentient. It's not even really physical, if you think about it. Nothing "people" about it.

[GrassrootsConservative]

A corporation is made up of people in the same way a nation is made up of people. @GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478) is correct on that account. Where the disconnect happens is that being "made up" of people does not make you a person. In fact, by definition you wouldn't be a person, just a group of people.

So to answer the question, no, a corporation is not a person. It's an artificial business entity created and run by people, but it is not itself a person. It can't vote, it can't speak, it can't breathe, it can't think. It is not sentient. It's not even really physical, if you think about it. Nothing "people" about it.

Then the poll is worded incorrectly. If it said "is a corporation a person?" The answer would be no, but corporations are people, collectively.

[Green Arrow]

Then the poll is worded incorrectly. If it said "is a corporation a person?" The answer would be no, but corporations are people, collectively.

That's not how it works. "Corporations" and "people," meaning plural. As in, are all the corporations that exist people. And no, they are not, because corporations are business entities and not human beings.

[GrassrootsConservative]

That's not how it works. "Corporations" and "people," meaning plural. As in, are all the corporations that exist people. And no, they are not, because corporations are business entities and not human beings.
So which corporations are made up of organisms that aren't people? I'll wait.

[Green Arrow]

So which corporations are made up of organisms that aren't people? I'll wait.

I don't know of any, but that painting of the dogs playing poker suggests there could be a dog-run corporation out there somewhere.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I don't know of any, but that painting of the dogs playing poker suggests there could be a dog-run corporation out there somewhere.

So the only corporations you know of are people, right? No manatee or flying squirrel corporations, correct?

[Green Arrow]

So the only corporations you know of are people, right? No manatee or flying squirrel corporations, correct?

Sure.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Sure.

So then this:


are all the corporations that exist people. And no, they are not, because corporations are business entities and not human beings.

Should actually be "Yes, they are." Because there are no existing corporations that are not people.

[Green Arrow]

So then this:

Should actually be "Yes, they are." Because there are no existing corporations that are not people.

Except if you remove people from the equation completely, corporations still exist as legal business entities. They won't do anything, but they still exist sans people.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Except if you remove people from the equation completely, corporations still exist as legal business entities. They won't do anything, but they still exist sans people.

Without people a corporation does not exist. Read the definition on page one. A corporation is a group of people ... That's the way it starts. Corporations are people. By definition they have to be.

[GrassrootsConservative]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporation



corporation



noun cor·po·ra·tion \ˌkȯr-pə-ˈrā-shən\


: a large business or organization that under the law has the rights and duties of an individual and follows a specific purpose

Full Definition of CORPORATION1

a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild
b : the municipal authorities of a town or city


2

: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession






Do you get it now?

[Peter1469]

Corporations have to have some legally recognizable rights in order to operate. That doesn't mean that we have to call them people. If the CEO of a business commits fraud he can be put in jail. The corporation cannot be put into jail. Likewise, the CEO (and well as every employee and shareholder) of a corporation can donate his money to a political campaign. There is no Constitutional reason to allow the corporation to do so as well.

We create these legal fictions such as corporate personhood to make the system work, and then get carried away and take them too far.

[Captain Obvious]

Corporatists have an agenda, hence the myth.

Corps are a business conduit, period.

[Reason10]

As soon as you can give a lethal injection or other capital punishment to one, then I'll see them as people.

The LAW considers them people, regardless of what you think. Their political contributions are just as valid and JUST AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED as union dues extorted from workers in dumbass NO RIGHT TO WORK states.

[Reason10]

Union and corporations are exactly opposite

Obviously. Corporations CREATE jobs. Unions send those jobs to the far east.

Doesn't change the law.

[Reason10]

A corporation is just that, a corporation, it's not a person or people it's brick, mortar, paper, systems, etc with the intent of making wealth and products. People can obviously work for/within a corporation but they (corporations) should not be treated or considered as "people". It's funny, there are a ton of people out there that scoff at any attempt to anthropomorphize another animal but are perfectly fine doing it for a corporation. People are people and corporations are corporations.

You probably didn't know this, (liberals know so little, and that problem is usually on purpose in their small minds) but a person can BECOME a corporation. All it takes is paying the right fees and filling out the right paperwork.

So John Doe becomes THE JOHN DOE FOUNDATION INC. Tell me again how that decision renders him unworthy of the protections of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

[Cigar]

As soon as you can give a lethal injection or other capital punishment to one, then I'll see them as people.

It's part of the reason for incorporating ... personal immunity :laugh:

[Reason10]

Corporations are created to enable people to work within it. The corporation is not a person.

A corporation is a PERSON that is created by statute. That's the law. And the First Amendment does not say that only persons not created by statute have the right of free speech.

[Reason10]

The question is not if corporations are important, but whether they are people.

If that's the only question, this poll is meaningless. The SUPREME COURT has settled this once and for all.

[Crepitus]

You probably didn't know this, (liberals know so little, and that problem is usually on purpose in their small minds) but a person can BECOME a corporation. All it takes is paying the right fees and filling out the right paperwork.

So John Doe becomes THE JOHN DOE FOUNDATION INC. Tell me again how that decision renders him unworthy of the protections of the FIRST AMENDMENT.
He did not become a corporation. John Doe is still John Doe, and THE JOHN DOE CORPORATION is a corporation.

[Crepitus]

Obviously. Corporations CREATE jobs. Unions send those jobs to the far east.

Doesn't change the law.
This is so backwards I don't even know where to start.

[PolWatch]

A corporation is a PERSON that is created by statute. That's the law. And the First Amendment does not say that only persons not created by statute have the right of free speech.

Some people seem to think that government is God...that it can create life....whodathunkit?

[Cigar]

If that's the only question, this poll is meaningless. The SUPREME COURT has settled this once and for all.

As they did for ObamaCare ... are you done now?

[Safety]

As they did for ObamaCare ... are you done now?

Yea, I believe Reason10 won't invoke that argument ever again.

[nic34]

As soon as you can give a lethal injection or other capital punishment to one, then I'll see them as people.
They used to be mortal and have life spans. Before the heir heads.

[nic34]

This is so backwards I don't even know where to start.
Probably ate lead paint as a kid.

[Cigar]

“Surely we can agree that corporations don’t need taxpayers to subsidize massive CEO pay............





https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/430378206353317888/3QKYak-Z_400x400.jpegRep. Barbara Lee, introducing legislation that denies corporations tax deductions on executive pay over $500,000 or 25 times worker pay, March 4, 2015

http://toomuchonline.org/#sthash.geuWlTpi.dpuf



If Corporations are People too ... then why are you for them to get Welfare?

[Ransom]

Lot of butthurt over the Citizens United decision still present, and just as much dickriding of big business by corporatists. Are corporations people and does their money equate to free speech?

My understanding is that the notion of corporate personhood is an entirely Americam concept and a relatively new phenomena that originates with the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision.

Why wouldn't unions and community organizations be included in your questionnaire? Exposing this for yet another bash of corporations and capitalism by a socialist/communist.

[Ransom]

Some people seem to think that government is God...that it can create life....whodathunkit?

2008 and 2012 Obama voters, why?

[PolWatch]

2008 and 2012 Obama voters, why?

flailing this morning? you can do better than this one...

btw: unions & community organizations have not been awarded people status by the courts....prob why they are not included in the OP question.

[Cigar]

BAM! :laugh:

[Captain Obvious]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/79/791e828671f6977eadb18d94011351b46cf7bdb9e5aff38ad5 7615c63ba0107c.jpg

[Captain Obvious]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c4/c47f610b5a9b8900211767145e85c35134655cf0794b1af880 50f7f3f25e8cf7.jpg

[Ransom]

flailing this morning? you can do better than this one...

btw: unions & community organizations have not been awarded people status by the courts....prob why they are not included in the OP question.

They were included in the Citizens United decision mentioned specifically in the thread start.....as I continue to fly far over your head.

Morning PolWatch.....and stay sharp.....er....if you're going to try to keep up with me.

[Ransom]

https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/what-citizens-united-means-for-union-political-spending/

For those of you not in the know on this topic.

Happy Monday, PolWatch.

[PolWatch]

muddy the waters much? the OP question is: 'Are corporations people?' CU is mentioned as part of the discussion...but it is not the question. have another cuppa...it'll help make your Monday better....be careful you don't get burned

[Cigar]

The answer is NO

Neither is my Cellphone, Car or Cup of Coffee :rollseyes:

If Corporations were People, they'd have a Birth Certificate, Social Security Card and a Sex Life

[del]

as this thread amply demonstrates, only those of severely limited intellect, like scotus, consider corporations to be people.

right, von clauswitz?

[Ransom]

muddy the waters much? the OP question is: 'Are corporations people?' CU is mentioned as part of the discussion...but it is not the question. have another cuppa...it'll help make your Monday better....be careful you don't get burned

The OP question is "Are Corporations People", the very first comment from the thread starter "Lot of butthurt over the Citizens United decision still present,"

I explained the Citizens United decision also involved unions, iustitia's focus on corporations is just as I said.....uncalled for.

Explaining this to you as I'm flying over your head I don't mind either, PolWatch, I'll always be a step ahead...but you can learn a thing or two from me. Actually, you've already learned like a thing or 2000 from me....for free. Not even charging you tuition.

[Ransom]

as this thread amply demonstrates, only those of severely limited intellect, like scotus, consider corporations to be people.

right, von clauswitz?

Hey del, we were just discussing those not in the know concerning this topic and kaboom.....you show right up to prove it.

You're like a Teacher's Aid, just that helpful.

[Captain Obvious]

Hey del, we were just discussing those not in the know concerning this topic and kaboom.....you show right up to prove it.

You're like a Teacher's Aid, just that helpful.

And you're a lot like a marital aid actually, but we don't hold that against you.

[PolWatch]

flailing

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608047419762345927&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

[Captain Obvious]

flailing

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608047419762345927&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

http://www.theprospect.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kermit.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6i315ZvAU1qef7vy.gif

[Ransom]

Read my link and realized I was right...again...huh PolWatch?

And you don't like it when I'm right....normally it means you're wrong.

Not able to fly at these altitudes quite yet but I promise....you'll soon reach the line without having to stand on your toes....they'll let you ride the big kid rides.

Until then, ok?

[PolWatch]

:rollseyes:

[Captain Obvious]

Actually, corporations are probably more like people since most people are just tools anyway.

[Cigar]

Actually, corporations are probably more like people since most people are just tools anyway.

Have you been Dry Humping the sides of Building? :laugh:

[Green Arrow]

If that's the only question, this poll is meaningless. The SUPREME COURT has settled this once and for all.

Then you should agree that Obamacare is completely constitutional and abortion is a constitutional right.

[iustitia]

Then you should agree that Obamacare is completely constitutional and abortion is a constitutional right.

Seems legit.

[Captain Obvious]

Seems legit.

http://imghumour.com/assets/Uploads/A-bit-young-but-seems-legit.jpg

[iustitia]

Why wouldn't unions and community organizations be included in your questionnaire? Exposing this for yet another bash of corporations and capitalism by a socialist/communist.

Because that's not the question. Suck it up buttercup.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Because that's not the question. Suck it up buttercup.

Sorry about them ruining your thread. Did my responses help at all?

[Peter1469]

The LAW considers them people, regardless of what you think. Their political contributions are just as valid and JUST AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED as union dues extorted from workers in dumbass NO RIGHT TO WORK states.


If a corporation commits a crime can the corporation go to jail? If not, why not?

[Cigar]

If a corporation commits a crime can the corporation go to jail? If not, why not?

WALL STREET would be behind Bars :laugh:

[GrassrootsConservative]

If a corporation commits a crime can the corporation go to jail? If not, why not?

Enron.

[Green Arrow]

Enron.

Enron isn't in jail.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Enron isn't in jail.

Nope, lucky for them. I think one of them had a heart attack before sentencing. I remember it being all over the news. They would have gone to jail for awhile though and I think a few of them did.

[Peter1469]

Nope, lucky for them. I think one of them had a heart attack before sentencing. I remember it being all over the news. They would have gone to jail for awhile though and I think a few of them did.

You are talking about the officers of Enron.

I said Enron. Why is it not in jail?

About political contributions, the officers of Enron are free to give (and go to jail).

[Green Arrow]

Nope, lucky for them. I think one of them had a heart attack before sentencing. I remember it being all over the news. They would have gone to jail for awhile though and I think a few of them did.

People within Enron are in jail, sure. People within Enron went to trial. But Enron will never go to jail, because you can't put a corporation in jail.

Seriously, this is not a hard concept to grasp.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You are talking about the officers of Enron.

I said Enron. Why is it not in jail?

About political contributions, the officers of Enron are free to give (and go to jail).

I am talking about the people that were Enron. Enron wasn't just an abstract construct.

[GrassrootsConservative]

People within Enron are in jail, sure. People within Enron went to trial. But Enron will never go to jail, because you can't put a corporation in jail.

Seriously, this is not a hard concept to grasp.

It sure isn't. Why are we going on post #88 for it? You'd think the definition I provided alone would tell you corporations are people. It's in the definition.

[Hal Jordan]

Read my link and realized I was right...again...huh PolWatch?

And you don't like it when I'm right....normally it means you're wrong.

Not able to fly at these altitudes quite yet but I promise....you'll soon reach the line without having to stand on your toes....they'll let you ride the big kid rides.

Until then, ok?

That implies that you were right a first time, which I haven't seen yet...

Of course you're flying over her head. She pulled the lever that launched you out of the catapult. Happy landings!

10866

[GrassrootsConservative]

Corporations are people. They have to be. If they weren't people they would just be another grouping. A herd, a swarm, a populace, maybe even, but being people is what makes them specifically a corporation.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Let's ask about a couple more, maybe this will help clear things up for you guys?

Are governments people?

Are charities people?

[del]

Corporations are people. They have to be. If they weren't people they would just be another grouping. A herd, a swarm, a populace, maybe even, but being people is what makes them specifically a corporation.

jesus wept

[The Sage of Main Street]

Corporations are created to enable people to work within it. The corporation is not a person. It's a collective farm with a Commissar who calls himself a "CEO."

[The Sage of Main Street]

muddy the waters much? the OP question is: 'Are corporations people?' CU is mentioned as part of the discussion...but it is not the question. have another cuppa...it'll help make your Monday better....be careful you don't get burned Was a King a nation? The economic royalists are following that pattern. That puts them on the cutting edge--of a guillotine.

[Peter1469]

I am talking about the people that were Enron. Enron wasn't just an abstract construct.

The people who run and work for Enron are free to give money to politicians.

Why does the corporation Enron also have to give money?

Now if the question "why isn't Enron", the company, "in jail" confuses you, apply that metaphor to two sentences above.

[GrassrootsConservative]

The people who run and work for Enron are free to give money to politicians.

Why does the corporation Enron also have to give money?

Now if the question "why isn't Enron", the company, "in jail" confuses you, apply that metaphor to two sentences above.

It doesn't confuse me at all. I've known the answer to this thread since page one. Enron isn't in jail because it's dead.

[Peter1469]

It doesn't confuse me at all. I've known the answer to this thread since page one. Enron isn't in jail because it's dead.

You are either confused or back peddling. Which is it?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Clarify. I disagree. I'm on the same side of the fence I have been in this discussion. A corporation is the people in it. Without them it would not be.

[Peter1469]

Clarify. I disagree. I'm on the same side of the fence I have been in this discussion. A corporation is the people in it. Without them it would not be.

I agree that a corporation is the people in it.

My position is that the people in a corporation are free to give to any political cause they wish.

I would not allow the actual corporation to give. It is redundant and how can any corporation know what the political wishes are of all of its employees and shareholders?

If a corporation commits crimes, the people who are responsible can go to jail. The corporation can't go to jail.

[Bob]

I agree that a corporation is the people in it.

My position is that the people in a corporation are free to give to any political cause they wish.

I would not allow the actual corporation to give. It is redundant and how can any corporation know what the political wishes are of all of its employees and shareholders?

If a corporation commits crimes, the people who are responsible can go to jail. The corporation can't go to jail.

Thus it boils down to what sum any corporation can donate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/07/supreme-court-political-donation-corporations/7417035/


Campaign donors can give $2,600 to a federal candidate in each primary and general election. They can give $32,400 to a national party committee, $10,000 to a state, district or local party committee, and $5,000 to any other political committee per year. Those limits were not changed.
In 2010, the court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts independently on political campaigns. But the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissiondecision did not affect direct donations.

[Bob]

It surprises me to read Peter voted they are not people in the legal sense of the word.

Peter, did you forget business law?

[Bob]

Clarify. I disagree. I'm on the same side of the fence I have been in this discussion. A corporation is the people in it. Without them it would not be.

That is not how the law reads. The people in it are not the corporation, they are employees.

[Bob]

Sort of. The government can sue property via asset forfeiture based of the ludicrous doctrine that property can now commit crime because it was involved.

No joke. Crazy stuff.

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

When some complain about Patriot, I point to the RICO law you speak of as proof it is the model for Patriot.

They don't sue the property. They simply take it per RICO. Even when the occupants are innocent, the property is taken.

I am perpetually shocked they don't talk about Rico, but talk about Patriot.

[Peter1469]

It surprises me to read Peter voted they are not people in the legal sense of the word.

Peter, did you forget business law?


No Bob, I have not forgotten business law.

So you also want corporations that violate the law to be put into prison. How does that work?

[Bob]

No Bob, I have not forgotten business law.

So you also want corporations that violate the law to be put into prison. How does that work?

Show where I said something like that?

Corporations get sued, just like people.

[Common]

Show where I said something like that?

Corporations get sued, just like people.

You said it bobby dont deny it

[Peter1469]

Show where I said something like that?

Corporations get sued, just like people.

If they were people, they could be put in jail.... Right?

[Bob]

If they were people, they could be put in jail.... Right?

True, but i never said they are people, but per the law, are treated like people.

[Common]

True, but i never said they are people, but per the law, are treated like people.

You should listen to peter booby hes a real lawyer, he knows alot more about it than you

[Peter1469]

True, but i never said they are people, but per the law, are treated like people.

And that is what I said, except they are only treated as people for certain purposes. I think that campaign contributions ought not be one of those purposes. In general, but I don't want to complicate matters.

[Bob]

And that is what I said, except they are only treated as people for certain purposes. I think that campaign contributions ought not be one of those purposes. In general, but I don't want to complicate matters.

We agree on the first part. Not sure what got you confused. It does not matter on the contributions since this has been cleared up in a court of law.

[Bob]

We have some static in this place. Talks to some mythical character of his invention Booby??????????? It is my hunch he is looking at his own mirror. Mods, please .... I have kindly sought your kind assistance.

[Common]

We have some static in this place. Talks to some mythical character of his invention Booby??????????? It is my hunch he is looking at his own mirror. Mods, please .... I have kindly sought your kind assistance.

That was a typo bobby, stop whining sheesh two OOs instead of two Bs and your getting all upset take a prozac.

Now back to topic corporations are greedy scumbags

[GrassrootsConservative]

I agree that a corporation is the people in it.

My position is that the people in a corporation are free to give to any political cause they wish.

I would not allow the actual corporation to give. It is redundant and how can any corporation know what the political wishes are of all of its employees and shareholders?

If a corporation commits crimes, the people who are responsible can go to jail. The corporation can't go to jail.

I'm still on this first part. Good. So you agree then that a corporation is people.

Corporation on one side. People on the other. Equal sign in the middle.

That's all this thread is about. Are corporations people? Yes, they are.

[Crepitus]

I'm quit surprised, and not a little pleased, by the results. The board feels pretty evenly spread left to right wise, but even so a large majority voted "NO" to the OP question.

[Dr. Who]

I'm still on this first part. Good. So you agree then that a corporation is people.

Corporation on one side. People on the other. Equal sign in the middle.

That's all this thread is about. Are corporations people? Yes, they are.
Yes and no. Legally, the only people in a corporation that can be held criminally or civilly responsible are Directors and up. Everyone else is a mere employee, other than with regard to a specific incident that has nothing to do with corporate direction, for example, a fight between two employees. If a corporation decides to side step safety in a manufacturing plant, the rank and file employees cannot be held responsible if someone dies. Similarly if a corporation commits pollution activities, regular employees are not liable. Corporate directors and above can be held personally responsible. That liability or even criminal responsibility falls upon those members of the corporation who direct activities or create policy. Those persons generally sign documents agreeing to the responsibility and the corporation generally takes out specific Directors and Officers insurance to both defend these employees and the corporation itself in the event of an incident. That does not mean that these people cannot end up in jail, if it is proven that they showed careless disregard for human life and may be held criminally responsible or were so negligent that a finding liability is applied both personally to an individual director, or even the CEO, and against the corporation itself.

[Newpublius]

People simply do not grasp on this concept. Corporate personhood is actually a shortcut. Corporations aren't people, people are people and people own corporations. Under normal rules of common law agency, the group and individuals wouldn't be separate. What corporate personhood really is is the concept, the legal fiction no less, of separate personhood for a corporate entity, ie. That the corporate entity is separate and distinct from its shareholders. Its obviously a legal fiction because the obvious connection between shareholders and the corporation is straightforward and obvious.

So, if we say that corporations aren't people what we're really saying is that corporations aren't separate and distinct from its shareholders, ie it assumes the personality of the group, the corporation goes from being the legal fiction of a person to being simply a group of people.

Happy?

I didn't think so..

[Bob]

This ought to clear it up for Dr. Who

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby _should_lose_at_the_supreme.html

[Common]

This ought to clear it up for Dr. Who

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby _should_lose_at_the_supreme.html

lol thats one guys opinion which in the scheme of things means squat

[Bob]

People simply do not grasp on this concept. Corporate personhood is actually a shortcut. Corporations aren't people, people are people and people own corporations. Under normal rules of common law agency, the group and individuals wouldn't be separate. What corporate personhood really is is the concept, the legal fiction no less, of separate personhood for a corporate entity, ie. That the corporate entity is separate and distinct from its shareholders. Its obviously a legal fiction because the obvious connection between shareholders and the corporation is straightforward and obvious.

So, if we say that corporations aren't people what we're really saying is that corporations aren't separate and distinct from its shareholders, ie it assumes the personality of the group, the corporation goes from being the legal fiction of a person to being simply a group of people.

Happy?

I didn't think so..

That is what I have tried to tell them.

Can you sue a corporation? Well, if it lacks personhood, no. Since it has personhood, yes, the corporation can be sued and forced to pay damages.

When corporations were formed, and I once was the president and CEO of one, it was created by law. I set it up with a SF attorney. The corporation had duties.

IT is often said one forms a corporation to force any liabilities onto the corporation and not on the stock owners.

[Peter1469]

That is what I have tried to tell them.

Can you sue a corporation? Well, if it lacks personhood, no. Since it has personhood, yes, the corporation can be sued and forced to pay damages.

When corporations were formed, and I once was the president and CEO of one, it was created by law. I set it up with a SF attorney. The corporation had duties.

IT is often said one forms a corporation to force any liabilities onto the corporation and not on the stock owners.

Why can't a corporation cast a vote in elections? The CEO can cast a vote. The employees can cast votes.

[Newpublius]

Well, if you disregard separate corporate personhood, what do you think the consequences are?

[Bob]

lol thats one guys opinion which in the scheme of things means squat

Above commentary means squat per said person.

[Bob]

Why can't a corporation cast a vote in elections? The CEO can cast a vote. The employees can cast votes.

Good question.

[Newpublius]

Why can't a corporation cast a vote in elections? The CEO can cast a vote. The employees can cast votes.

Its separate personhood is a 'legal fiction' -- a legal fiction not created to give these associations, already comprised of individuals capable of voting, more voting weight.

If it were granted the right to vote, it'd have to be a contractual faction. The indivoduals would have to agree to vote on things and then delegate the majority opinion to be the opinion of all, cast the corporate vote accordingly with the weight of the underlying individuals and the individuals would have to forfeit their individual vote (the NFIB system RESEMBLES this a little bit)

[Peter1469]

Its separate personhood is a 'legal fiction' -- a legal fiction not created to give these associations, already comprised of individuals capable of voting, more voting weight.

If it were granted the right to vote, it'd have to be a contractual faction. The indivoduals would have to agree to vote on things and then delegate the majority opinion to be the opinion of all, cast the corporate vote accordingly with the weight of the underlying individuals and the individuals would have to forfeit their individual vote (the NFIB system RESEMBLES this a little bit)

So campaign contributions: why don't shareholders get to vote on who the corporation donates to? Also why don't the employees get a say?

We finally came full circle. Circles, I like them.

[Peter1469]

The ability of corporations to lobby Congress is plenty. They don't need to dump millions of dollars into political campaigns.

[Newpublius]

PeoplePeople are people and when they hear corporations are people it just rubs them the wrong way. They conflate the legal sense of separate corporate personhood, a legal fiction, with their own individuality allowing their laymen sensibilities to be offending without ever contemplating the underlying meaning.

With respect to the V and XIV Amendments, dealing with government power, personhood is the key to Due Process. If a corporation is not a person for purposes of the V and XIV Amendment, then the governmeny needn't provide corporations Due Process. Government wouldn't be restrained from seizing corporate assets whatsoever.

If you don't think the government should be able to seize private property without Due Process. And when phrased like that, only the most ardent proponents of Marxism would object, then you actually DO think that corporations are people FOR PURPOSES OF (very important phrase in law) the V and XIV Amendments of the US Constitution.

[Peter1469]

People are people and when they hear corporations are people it just rubs them the wrong way. They conflate the legal sense of separate corporate personhood, a legal fiction, with their own individuality allowing their laymen sensibilities to be offending without ever contemplating the underlying meaning.

I agree 100% that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. I am not sure it is needed, state law can identify the rights of corporations just fine under existing business codes. Anyway, there is no reason that under the personhood fiction that corporations can be denied the right to contribute to political elections.

[Bob]

Its separate personhood is a 'legal fiction' -- a legal fiction not created to give these associations, already comprised of individuals capable of voting, more voting weight.

If it were granted the right to vote, it'd have to be a contractual faction. The indivoduals would have to agree to vote on things and then delegate the majority opinion to be the opinion of all, cast the corporate vote accordingly with the weight of the underlying individuals and the individuals would have to forfeit their individual vote (the NFIB system RESEMBLES this a little bit)

The Government needs corporations to be "legal fiction persons" to tax them.

[Peter1469]

The Government needs corporations to be "legal fiction persons" to tax them.

Why?

[Newpublius]

So campaign contributions: why don't shareholders get to vote on who the corporation donates to? Also why don't the employees get a say?

We finally came full circle. Circles, I like them.

They do, indirectly, just like they do on everything else, through the elected Board of Directors. Employees are agents of the corporation, master/servant, they're the servant. (Employees can be shareholders too of course and they can vote those shares)

[Newpublius]

Why?

How would you issue a UPS truck a parking ticket otherwise?

Due process requires notice.

[Peter1469]

They do, indirectly, just like they do on everything else, through the elected Board of Directors. Employees are agents of the corporation, master/servant, they're the servant. (Employees can be shareholders too of course and they can vote those shares)

I disagree. It would be interesting to see a group of shareholders sue a board for a breach of its fiduciary duty for wasting corporate assets on a political campaign. Again, they can lobby all that they want.

And every person associated with a corporation can freely give from their own resources. Why must corporations be allowed to as well?

[Bob]

Why?

All owners pay taxes. All workers pay taxes. It would not be smart to tax a thing. A person is fine. (personhood)

[Peter1469]

How would you issue a UPS truck a parking ticket otherwise?

Due process requires notice.

The state business code can simply say that corporations have to follow traffic laws.

We don't need to pretend that the corporation is a person.

[Newpublius]

The ability of corporations to lobby Congress is plenty. They don't need to dump millions of dollars into political campaigns.

In laymens terms, corporations means one things, legally though corporations also have a much broader sense. The AARP is a kind of corporation, between Social Security and Medicare I think they do alright!

[Dr. Who]

This ought to clear it up for Dr. Who

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby _should_lose_at_the_supreme.html
Corporate personhood stems from taxation and legal liability. It was and is a legal method of protecting shareholders (investors) for personal liability for the behavior and taxes accruing to the corporation over which they have no oversight or control. This is compared to partnership situations or sole proprietorships which may have no legal protection for the owners or their personal assets. It does not however protect the directors and officers of a corporation from prosecution or civil liability. That is the long and the short of it Bob. It is a legal fiction to protect shareholders.

[Newpublius]

The state business code can simply say that corporations have to follow traffic laws.

We don't need to pretend that the corporation is a person.

You do because Due Process demands that somebody have some chance to answer the governments allegation. If the corporate entity is a separate person, the ticket can be issued to UPS and UPS can handle the summons accordingly. Or, without the doctrine, the corporation WOULDNT be separate and you'd have to give notice to every single shareholder/owner. Completely impractical, particularly for a publicly traded corporation where the ownership structure is in constant flux (you couldn't do it if you wanted). The solution is legal fiction of separate personhood.

[Bob]

Corporate personhood stems from taxation and legal liability. It was and is a legal method of protecting shareholders (investors) for personal liability for the behavior and taxes accruing to the corporation over which they have no oversight or control. This is compared to partnership situations or sole proprietorships which may have no legal protection for the owners or their personal assets. It does not however protect the directors and officers of a corporation from prosecution or civil liability. That is the long and the short of it Bob. It is a legal fiction to protect shareholders.

Did I forget to tell you I formed a corporation and understand all of this very well? Did I forget to say in college, in business law, it was part of our course?

[Peter1469]

Did I forget to tell you I formed a corporation and understand all of this very well? Did I forget to say in college, in business law, it was part of our course?


Come on Bob, it was an undergrad business "law" course. Not a law school course.

[Bob]

So campaign contributions: why don't shareholders get to vote on who the corporation donates to? Also why don't the employees get a say?

We finally came full circle. Circles, I like them.

I personally would refer to the Corporation bylaws and also take note of the way the corporation is set up.

[Bob]

Come on Bob, it was an undergrad business "law" course. Not a law school course.

Are you telling me the law course that lasted a full year was not really the correct law?

[Newpublius]

Beyond that though the common law itself was moving in the same direction as statutory law. Separate personhood does assit limited liability, but the common law was doing this for unincorporated associations where the imposition of vicarious liability would subject innocent members to the imposition of unlimited liability without agency or any real culpability as we would think of it.

[Bob]

You do because Due Process demands that somebody have some chance to answer the governments allegation. If the corporate entity is a separate person, the ticket can be issued to UPS and UPS can handle the summons accordingly. Or, without the doctrine, the corporation WOULDN'T be separate and you'd have to give notice to every single shareholder/owner. Completely impractical, particularly for a publicly traded corporation where the ownership structure is in constant flux (you couldn't do it if you wanted). The solution is legal fiction of separate personhood.

I understood that. I sure hope everybody else does.

[Peter1469]

Are you telling me the law course that lasted a full year was not really the correct law?

No. I am saying that an undergrad course with the word law behind it is not equal to a law school course.

[Peter1469]

I personally would refer to the Corporation bylaws and also take note of the way the corporation is set up.

I agree with that, but didn't want to complicate matters. Citizens United was a corporation set up precisely to contribute to political campaigns. I don't have a problem with that. 99.9% of corporations are set up for other reasons.

People can't get the basics, and I just went way advanced. Sorry.

[Peter1469]

You do because Due Process demands that somebody have some chance to answer the governments allegation. If the corporate entity is a separate person, the ticket can be issued to UPS and UPS can handle the summons accordingly. Or, without the doctrine, the corporation WOULDNT be separate and you'd have to give notice to every single shareholder/owner. Completely impractical, particularly for a publicly traded corporation where the ownership structure is in constant flux (you couldn't do it if you wanted). The solution is legal fiction of separate personhood.

And it does not require allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns. We have covered this.

[Cthulhu]

I agree 100% that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. I am not sure it is needed, state law can identify the rights of corporations just fine under existing business codes. Anyway, there is no reason that under the personhood fiction that corporations can be denied the right to contribute to political elections.
I think it's still needed because the bulk if statutory law applies to legal fiction "persons".

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

[Newpublius]

I agree with that, but didn't want to complicate matters. Citizens United was a corporation set up precisely to contribute to political campaigns. I don't have a problem with that. 99.9% of corporations are set up for other reasons.

People can't get the basics, and I just went way advanced. Sorry.

And Citizens United, which was a 501C4, (not in any sense different from the Republican or Democratic parties), spent money to make a movie to convince people not to vote for Hillary Clinton by subjecting her to criticism, a seated member of government.

Dog Eat Dog, Inc spent money to make Fahrenheit 9/11 with the avowed purpose of attempting to sway the 2004 election by subjecting George Bush, then a seated member of the government, to vitriolic criticism.

The NY Times is a corporation too and they spend a helluva lot more than either and in part publish editorials and obviously make endorsements.

MSNBC was at one point NBC and Microsoft where NBC was part of the General Electric keiretsu. Chris Matthews' speech is attributed to the corporate entity, MSNBC spends a lot of money to put Matthews on the air

Bill Gates' corporation CAN but David Bossie's corporation CAN'T? Why?

[Dr. Who]

Did I forget to tell you I formed a corporation and understand all of this very well? Did I forget to say in college, in business law, it was part of our course?
Then I don't understand the discussion. Corporate personhood is not personhood per se. A corporation is not a voter or an individual in the sense of a human being. Corporations may have both have voting and non-voting shares. As a holder of non-preferred stock, one may have absolutely no idea about the inner machinations of the corporation. As a holder of preferred stock may have some idea about the inner machinations, but not be privy to minor issues. The nonsense about Hobby Lobby notwithstanding, I believe that corporations should not be able to take a religious stance, since the personal religious preferences of the directors and officers should have no legal bearing on the corporation, which is not an actual person, but only a person in terms of financial and possibly criminal responsibility stemming from it's corporate behavior. Hobby Lobby may have atheist, Buddhist, Jewish and other religious shareholders who were not consulted about their stance. The liable, but non-owner directorship of the company have a fiduciary duty to the company as well as a duty not to commit crimes in the name of the company, they do not have a mandate to take a religious position which may very well penalize their shareholders.

[Newpublius]

And it does not require allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns. We have covered this.

There's a distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures. All direct contributions can be prohibited actually by regulating the candidate himself/herself. But the independent expenditures are a lot different actually. You can make candidates take a vow of poverty for all I care...

[Bob]

No. I am saying that an undergrad course with the word law behind it is not equal to a law school course.

I am not the one confused over the legal term corporation.

Clearly you don't know the quality of the law courses I have taken.

[Peter1469]

And Citizens United, which was a 501C4, (not in any sense different from the Republican or Democratic parties), spent money to make a movie to convince people not to vote for Hillary Clinton by subjecting her to criticism, a seated member of government.

Dog Eat Dog, Inc spent money to make Fahrenheit 9/11 with the avowed purpose of attempting to sway the 2004 election by subjecting George Bush, then a seated member of the government, to vitriolic criticism.

The NY Times is a corporation too and they spend a helluva lot more than either and in part publish editorials and obviously make endorsements.

MSNBC was at one point NBC and Microsoft where NBC was part of the General Electric keiretsu. Chris Matthews' speech is attributed to the corporate entity, MSNBC spends a lot of money to put Matthews on the air

Bill Gates' corporation CAN but David Bossie's corporation CAN'T? Why?

How much more clear can it be made. Corporations have charters. They should have wide latitude to act within the purpose of that charter.

Citizens United's charter: to advocate for the election of republicans.

Microsoft's charter: make operating system and associated software.

I knew I should not have added complexity to the debate.

People can't get the simple stuff.

[Green Arrow]

You know, I think Bob and GrassrootsConservative and the rest are right. Why stop at allowing corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns? Why not let them vote, too?

[Newpublius]

Then I don't understand the discussion. Corporate personhood is not personhood per se. A corporation is not a voter or an individual in the sense of a human being. Corporations may have both have voting and non-voting shares. As a holder of non-preferred stock, one may have absolutely no idea about the inner machinations of the corporation. As a holder of preferred stock may have some idea about the inner machinations, but not be privy to minor issues. The nonsense about Hobby Lobby notwithstanding, I believe that corporations should not be able to take a religious stance, since the personal religious preferences of the directors and officers should have no legal bearing on the corporation, which is not an actual person, but only a person in terms of financial and possibly criminal responsibility stemming from it's corporate behavior. Hobby Lobby may have atheist, Buddhist, Jewish and other religious shareholders who were not consulted about their stance. The liable, but non-owner directorship of the company have a fiduciary duty to the company as well as a duty not to commit crimes in the name of the company, they do not have a mandate to take a religious position which may very well penalize their shareholders.

It was a closely held corporation of course and the objection has to be legitimate. Nevertheless the vast majority of corporations are set up 'for any lawful purpose'

Nothing wrong with choosing that, its boilerplate and doesn't limit you. But you are free to set up a Christian corporation and insert that into the bylaws.

You do have the likes of Salem Communications out there.... I agree Exxon would have trouble there, but Salem Communications?

[Peter1469]

You know, I think Bob and GrassrootsConservative and the rest are right. Why stop at allowing corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns? Why not let them vote, too?

Put them in federal prison when they violate laws too.

[Newpublius]

Put them in federal prison when they violate laws too.

A corporation can be held criminally liable and obviously that criminal liability can only result because the actions of an individual are themselves independently criminal and yes, those individuals can be put in prison under the law.

[Bob]

Then I don't understand the discussion. Corporate personhood is not personhood per se. A corporation is not a voter or an individual in the sense of a human being. Corporations may have both have voting and non-voting shares. As a holder of non-preferred stock, one may have absolutely no idea about the inner machinations of the corporation. As a holder of preferred stock may have some idea about the inner machinations, but not be privy to minor issues. The nonsense about Hobby Lobby notwithstanding, I believe that corporations should not be able to take a religious stance, since the personal religious preferences of the directors and officers should have no legal bearing on the corporation, which is not an actual person, but only a person in terms of financial and possibly criminal responsibility stemming from it's corporate behavior. Hobby Lobby may have atheist, Buddhist, Jewish and other religious shareholders who were not consulted about their stance. The liable, but non-owner directorship of the company have a fiduciary duty to the company as well as a duty not to commit crimes in the name of the company, they do not have a mandate to take a religious position which may very well penalize their shareholders.

I don't normally waste time on these types of topics but isn't it true that Hobby Lobby is entirely owned by one family?

I and my first wife were the stock holders of a company I formed called Granada Realty, Inc. We divorced and I ended the corporation.

[Dr. Who]

You know, I think Bob and GrassrootsConservative and the rest are right. Why stop at allowing corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns? Why not let them vote, too?
Because that would confer a very different degree of personhood upon a corporation. That would make it an individual. Thus purchasing a company and selling it for parts would be an act of murder since it would effectively "kill" a company. How could you consider it a person in terms of human beings - it's directors and officers come and go? If it committed a crime, how could you incarcerate it? How could you even "arrest" it? A voter must be a citizen. How do you make a corporation an official citizen? Even if you could, what would be the point - it could only cast one vote?

[Newpublius]

How much more clear can it be made. Corporations have charters. They should have wide latitude to act within the purpose of that charter.

Citizens United's charter: to advocate for the election of republicans.

Microsoft's charter: make operating system and associated software.

I knew I should not have added complexity to the debate.

People can't get the simple stuff.

You're far astray from your point. You're suggesting that Citizens United should've gone the other way. That means they wouldn't have been able to spend the money, to make the movie, to criticize Hillary Clinton. Why can't they exactly? Their charter isn't limited like you suggest, these organizations have branded purposes, but those purposes aren't legal purposes, in fact the most common legal purpose is to incorporate 'for any lawful purpose.' - A person can choose a more limited purpose if desire, but why would they? Why limit yourself from the get go? There are reasons, but most people don't bother.

And that's why a political organization like Citizens United will wind up making a movie that criticizes Hillary Clinton. That's why a corporation like Yahoo will wind up purveying soft porn through a subsidiary like tumblr. That's why Microsoft wound up owning a TV station.

They're allowed to do these things, this is America.

[CaveDog]

Rights under our system are rooted in natural law. A corporation can't have the same rights as a natural person because it wasn't created by "Nature and Nature's God" and thus cannot as an entity claim such rights unto itself. The individuals who make up a corporation have rights but there's no such thing as a "collective" right because a group cannot have any special rights or more claim to rights by virtue of being a group. Rights are purely individual, not cumulative.

[PolWatch]

if the corp is a person...then the entire corporation should have to go to jail. I know there is a legal reason why that is wrong but it just proves (to me anyway) that the whole corp as person is a convenience to give them the benefits with none of the liabilities.

[Peter1469]

A corporation can be held criminally liable and obviously that criminal liability can only result because the actions of an individual are themselves independently criminal and yes, those individuals can be put in prison under the law.

Yes. And those individuals can donate to political campaigns.

Is everyone missing the point here?

[Newpublius]

Because that would confer a very different degree of personhood upon a corporation. That would make it an individual. Thus purchasing a company and selling it for parts would be an act of murder since it would effectively "kill" a company. How could you consider it a person in terms of human beings - it's directors and officers come and go? If it committed a crime, how could you incarcerate it? How could you even "arrest" it? A voter must be a citizen. How do you make a corporation an official citizen? Even if you could, what would be the point - it could only cast one vote?

Like I said before, you'd have to consider the corporation a binding faction where the individuals would be delegating their vote to the corporation. Its obviously not the case and the fact is that a person's associative rights do not subsume his individual personality, ie. I didn't buy a share of stock in Exxon thinking I had just delegated my vote to the ExxonMobil corporation. Its readily understood that I, as an individual, retained that right. And obviously the law doesn't permit any delegation ANYWAY.

[del]

Did I forget to tell you I formed a corporation and understand all of this very well? Did I forget to say in college, in business law, it was part of our course?

:rofl:

and, you're a realtor


:rofl:

[Green Arrow]

Because that would confer a very different degree of personhood upon a corporation. That would make it an individual. Thus purchasing a company and selling it for parts would be an act of murder since it would effectively "kill" a company. How could you consider it a person in terms of human beings - it's directors and officers come and go? If it committed a crime, how could you incarcerate it? How could you even "arrest" it? A voter must be a citizen. How do you make a corporation an official citizen? Even if you could, what would be the point - it could only cast one vote?

Well, the CEOs and such could all cast a vote and then they could cast another one through their corporations.

If corporations can have free speech in the form of donating money, why not let it vote too?

[Peter1469]

if the corp is a person...then the entire corporation should have to go to jail. I know there is a legal reason why that is wrong but it just proves (to me anyway) that the whole corp as person is a convenience to give them the benefits with none of the liabilities.

The reason behind corporate personhood is sound. But people don't understand the concept and take it to far even to the point of the indefensible.

[Green Arrow]

Did I forget to tell you I formed a corporation and understand all of this very well? Did I forget to say in college, in business law, it was part of our course?

Yes, you did forget to mention that until you suddenly thought it could advance your argument. I'm beginning to suspect you're making this stuff up.

[Newpublius]

Yes. And those individuals can donate to political campaigns.

Is everyone missing the point here?

Non sequitur.

[del]

I don't normally waste time on these types of topics but isn't it true that Hobby Lobby is entirely owned by one family?

I and my first wife were the stock holders of a company I formed called Granada Realty, Inc. We divorced and I ended the corporation.

who got the shark?

[Peter1469]

Non sequitur.

No it isn't.

Anyway, my position is clear enough. No need to repeat myself. Corporations (and unions) can be prohibited form donating to political campaigns with no Constitutional implications whatsoever. Although I hate to say it- most Americans agree with me.

[Newpublius]

Well, the CEOs and such could all cast a vote and then they could cast another one through their corporations.

The CEO is actually an agent of the corporation by the way. The shareholders own it.


If corporations can have free speech in the form of donating money, why not let it vote too?

Because the shareholders could vote and then the corporation could vote. If the corporation only had one vote, nobody would care anyway, there wouldn't be enough votes to actually turn an election. If the corporate entity's vote had weight, well, then people might care, but then the shareholders would have to forfeit their vote.

Nevertheless, the core point is that forming associations does not destroy your individual identity. Nobody thinks they're delegating their vote to a corporate entity and its obviously not allowed by law anyway.

[Dr. Who]

It was a closely held corporation of course and the objection has to be legitimate. Nevertheless the vast majority of corporations are set up 'for any lawful purpose'

Nothing wrong with choosing that, its boilerplate and doesn't limit you. But you are free to set up a Christian corporation and insert that into the bylaws.

You do have the likes of Salem Communications out there.... I agree Exxon would have trouble there, but Salem Communications?
I understand the idea of creating a corporation whose mandate is Christianity, but creating a retailer whose apparent undisclosed mandate is Christianity, when virtually everything that they sell has nothing to do with religion is nonsense and they are not traded on the stock market on that basis. It's stock may end up in mutual funds, owned by unsuspecting people and traded by individual who have or at least had no inkling of a religious bias on the part of the company. That to me is bait and switch.

[PolWatch]

I understand the corporation being viewed as a complete entity...with goals & purpose. When they were granted the ability to have political influence as a person and have religious identity is where I believe it has gone nuts. Corp personhood is nothing but a convenience to allow political influence via PAC's....which are nothing but super lobbyists to influence elections instead of waiting to buy their politicians after elected. Since SCOTUS has ruled that they now have religious identity, I expect the next step will be granted voting rights...of course their votes will count more than individuals because they are a really big person....or a really big pile of poop.

[Newpublius]

No it isn't.

Anyway, my position is clear enough. No need to repeat myself. Corporations (and unions) can be prohibited form donating to political campaigns with no Constitutional implications whatsoever. Although I hate to say it- most Americans agree with me.

No, one subset of the thread dealt with criminal liability imposed on corporations and the other subset of the thread was the concept dealing with the political activities of corporations.

Your first problem is your inability to separate direct contributions from independent expenditures. Like I said you can impose whatever condition you want on ANY candidate, but independent expenditures are different and you don't want to hear it. In the Citizens United case, Citizens United didn't give any money to any candidate.

[PolWatch]

Yes, you did forget to mention that until you suddenly thought it could advance your argument. I'm beginning to suspect you're making this stuff up.

oh no...he is much more educated on the law than Peter:

'I am not the one confused over the legal term corporation.

Clearly you don't know the quality of the law courses I have taken. "

[Peter1469]

No, one subset of the thread dealt with criminal liability imposed on corporations and the other subset of the thread was the concept dealing with the political activities of corporations.

Your first problem is your inability to separate direct contributions from independent expenditures. Like I said you can impose whatever condition you want on ANY candidate, but independent expenditures are different and you don't want to hear it. In the Citizens United case, Citizens United didn't give any money to any candidate.

You are avoiding the big picture.

I have said I don't have a problem with CU and what they did. Even if they gave to specific candidates.

In general, there is no good reason to not deny corporations the ability to donate to political campaigns. Every single person involved in a corporation can chose to donate to whom they will (or to nobody) - the typical corporation cannot responsibly represent the views of all of the people associated with it.

[Dr. Who]

I don't normally waste time on these types of topics but isn't it true that Hobby Lobby is entirely owned by one family?

I and my first wife were the stock holders of a company I formed called Granada Realty, Inc. We divorced and I ended the corporation.
On review, yes you are correct, it is privately owned. However as a corporation, I don't believe it should have the ability to take a religious stance when it's corporate charter is sales of hobby associated goods. The family chose to disassociate itself from the liabilities and taxes accruing to the company. How then can it then impose a religious mandate which is not a part of it's corporate charter?

[Peter1469]

I am not the one confused over the legal term corporation.

Clearly you don't know the quality of the law courses I have taken.

You never took a law course Bob.

You took an undergrad course.

[Newpublius]

I understand the idea of creating a corporation whose mandate is Christianity, but creating a retailer whose apparent undisclosed mandate is Christianity, when virtually everything that they sell has nothing to do with religion is nonsense and they are not traded on the stock market on that basis. It's stock may end up in mutual funds, owned by unsuspecting people and traded by individual who have or at least had no inkling of a religious bias on the part of the company. That to me is bait and switch.

Well I don't know how undisclosed it was they funded Christian charities, closed on Sunday and played Christian music stores. On top of which the issue in the case were certain birth control devices, including apparently things like the morning after pill which obviously implicates abortion. You're obviously aware of the general Christian stance against abortion and of course its not so much that they're stopping you, but that they just aren't going to be directly enabling you through their self insurance plan. Nevertheless, the larger point with respect to a Hobby Lobby vs Exxon is that Hobby Lobby was closely held by few people. Exxon is publicly traded. Indeed, I actually agree Exxon would have a hard time making a Christian objection to birth control (most employers would probably MANDATE it if they could), but you do have a couple of Christian publicly traded corporations out there. I happen to know of Salem Communications off the top of my head. There may be a couple others. MOST are simply in business for 'any lawful purpose' though and would have little recourse under the RFRA

[Peter1469]

You're far astray from your point. You're suggesting that Citizens United should've gone the other way. That means they wouldn't have been able to spend the money, to make the movie, to criticize Hillary Clinton. Why can't they exactly? Their charter isn't limited like you suggest, these organizations have branded purposes, but those purposes aren't legal purposes, in fact the most common legal purpose is to incorporate 'for any lawful purpose.' - A person can choose a more limited purpose if desire, but why would they? Why limit yourself from the get go? There are reasons, but most people don't bother.

And that's why a political organization like Citizens United will wind up making a movie that criticizes Hillary Clinton. That's why a corporation like Yahoo will wind up purveying soft porn through a subsidiary like tumblr. That's why Microsoft wound up owning a TV station.

They're allowed to do these things, this is America.

I am not far from my point.

I should have stuck to the general discussion. Going advanced left everyone lost.

If you have not noticed, Americans are not satisfied with the status quo. Corporations for "any lawful purpose" should not be an option. They use to have a very specific purpose and for a period of time, usually no more than 20 years.

No wonder out government is so corrupt.

[Dr. Who]

Well, the CEOs and such could all cast a vote and then they could cast another one through their corporations.

If corporations can have free speech in the form of donating money, why not let it vote too?
That would effectively give all CEOs two votes in any election. Given that balloting is secret, there would be no way to know whether a CEO voted as per the corporate charter and the interests of the company or as per the CEO's own personal politics. In terms of percentage of votes, it would make little to no difference in election outcome - not worth the effort.

[Green Arrow]

Well, at least we know where Americans stands on this issue. Every single one of the 7 "yes" votes are conservative-minded individuals. The 21 "no" voters are of a variety of different backgrounds, even including some conservatives.

As for the 7 yes votes...we know zelmo and Bob own (or used to own) businesses. I wonder if that has anything to do with their choice...

[Green Arrow]

That would effectively give all CEOs two votes in any election. Given that balloting is secret, there would be no way to know whether a CEO voted as per the corporate charter and the interests of the company or as per the CEO's own personal politics. In terms of percentage of votes, it would make little to no difference in election outcome - not worth the effort.

But it's the same with donating money. A CEO can donate with his own money to a candidate, then donate with the corporation's money too.

[Bob]

You never took a law course Bob.

You took an undergrad course.

Does putting down the college course I took ... make you feel better?

I paid a hell of a lot for that law book for it to be brushed off.

[Peter1469]

But it's the same with donating money. A CEO can donate with his own money to a candidate, then donate with the corporation's money too.

Don't state the obvious. You might confuse people.

[Newpublius]

Corporations for "any lawful purpose" should not be an option. They use to have a very specific purpose and for a period of time, usually no more than 20 years.

Then of course you impact a corporation's ability to adapt to ever changing circumstances.

[Peter1469]

Then of course you impact a corporation's ability to adapt to ever changing circumstances.

Why? Charters can be amended. Correct?

[Bob]

Yes, you did forget to mention that until you suddenly thought it could advance your argument. I'm beginning to suspect you're making this stuff up.

Proving you lack judgement and are operating in a fashion to show your age.

[Bob]

who got the shark?


You have bad judgement.

[Dr. Who]

Well I don't know how undisclosed it was they funded Christian charities, closed on Sunday and played Christian music stores. On top of which the issue in the case were certain birth control devices, including apparently things like the morning after pill which obviously implicates abortion. You're obviously aware of the general Christian stance against abortion and of course its not so much that they're stopping you, but that they just aren't going to be directly enabling you through their self insurance plan. Nevertheless, the larger point with respect to a Hobby Lobby vs Exxon is that Hobby Lobby was closely held by few people. Exxon is publicly traded. Indeed, I actually agree Exxon would have a hard time making a Christian objection to birth control (most employers would probably MANDATE it if they could), but you do have a couple of Christian publicly traded corporations out there. I happen to know of Salem Communications off the top of my head. There may be a couple others. MOST are simply in business for 'any lawful purpose' though and would have little recourse under the RFRA
I was inaccurate when I assumed that it was publicly traded, however I'm not sure that when to choose to disassociate all of your personal liabilities from a company, you can then turn around and impose your personal religious views upon same. If the corporation is legally separate, it cannot engage in anything that is outside of it's corporate charter, which in this case is the selling of hobby related goods. Unless you can show me that their corporate charter includes religious articles, I don't buy the fact that they can impose same legally.

[Newpublius]

Well, at least we know where Americans stands on this issue. Every single one of the 7 "yes" votes are conservative-minded individuals. The 21 "no" voters are of a variety of different backgrounds, even including some conservatives.

As for the 7 yes votes...we know zelmo and Bob own (or used to own) businesses. I wonder if that has anything to do with their choice...

America doesn't understand the consequences. The 'corporations aren't people' line possesses a superficial popularity.

In a world where corporations aren't people and Citizens United goes the other way, well here are the consequences:

1. It means the government censors Fahrenheit 9/11 (that too was made with corporate money)
2. It means the government can censor the NY Times (that's a corporation too)
3. It means the government can censor MSNBC (because Chris Matthews expresses his opinion through a corporate channel) owned by NBC/General Electric.

And that Congress is Republican right now (sure they'd be restrained by Obama's veto of course)......

Doesn't sound so hot now. But that's what it actually DOES mean.

[Bob]

On review, yes you are correct, it is privately owned. However as a corporation, I don't believe it should have the ability to take a religious stance when it's corporate charter is sales of hobby associated goods. The family chose to disassociate itself from the liabilities and taxes accruing to the company. How then can it then impose a religious mandate which is not a part of it's corporate charter?

Didn't Hobby Lobby win their case? Were I asking those questions, my move would be to research the case.

[PolWatch]

Proving you lack judgement and are operating in a fashion to show your age.
Bob - how would you like someone to say that your remarks were an indication of your age?

[Dr. Who]

But it's the same with donating money. A CEO can donate with his own money to a candidate, then donate with the corporation's money too.
Corporate donations have to be justified at Boards of Director meetings. A CEO cannot simply donate corporate money without disclosure or discussion.

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) - how would you like someone to say that your remarks were an indication of your age?

Why did you not show the very snotty thing he told me?

[Dr. Who]

Didn't Hobby Lobby win their case? Were I asking those questions, my move would be to research the case.
They did, but I disagree with the verdict.

[Common]

Proving you lack judgement and are operating in a fashion to show your age.

reported uncalled for personal attack :) If your going to gloat over reporting bobby you had better be on your best behavior :)

[PolWatch]

Why did you not show the very snotty thing he told me?

Was his remark about your age? Again, do you want people to make remarks about your age?

[Bob]

They did, but I disagree with the verdict.

I know the feelings. I agree with Rhenquist in Roe v Wade too but we know he did not prevail.

I so disagree with the court in that case.

[GrassrootsConservative]

reported uncalled for personal attack :) If your going to gloat over reporting bobby you had better be on your best behavior :)

If it helps even in the slightest I already told you that it was myself that reported you AND you responded to that post twice.

[Bob]

Was his remark about your age? Again, do you want people to make remarks about your age?

So, it fine for him to call me a liar and per you not okay to point out his age?

[PolWatch]

Please take personal issues to the PM function

[Bob]

Was his remark about your age? Again, do you want people to make remarks about your age?

My age has rudely been commented on many times.

[Newpublius]

Ihowever I'm not sure that when to choose to disassociate all of your personal liabilities from a company, you can then turn around and impose your personal religious views upon same.

Well that's why its status as a closely held corporation is very relevant: "As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA.'

Because their religious conviction in this case wasn't a stretch of the imagination in a way that WOULD BE for Exxon unless Exxon had started that way.

One thing to remember about Hobby Lobby and the RFRA. The RFRA was enacted pursuant to the peyote case which was a case where the Supreme Court upheld our nation's drug laws even with respect to the religious use of drugs. Congress thought better of that and passed a STATUTE which essentially imposed a higher standard on Congress than the Supreme Court themselves actually would.

If the RFRA were truly BROAD, the Controlled Substances Act would be SWISS CHEESE already....it obviously isn't.

[PolWatch]

My age has rudely been commented on many times.

I should have just issued a warning instead of trying to explain why this not appropriate. Please consider this a warning to drop the age attacks. If anyone wishes to discuss age differences they can use the pm function.
Please take personal issues to the PM function

[Bob]

Rights under our system are rooted in natural law. A corporation can't have the same rights as a natural person because it wasn't created by "Nature and Nature's God" and thus cannot as an entity claim such rights unto itself. The individuals who make up a corporation have rights but there's no such thing as a "collective" right because a group cannot have any special rights or more claim to rights by virtue of being a group. Rights are purely individual, not cumulative.

What is "natural law"?

Believe it or not, you are making the very good argument for the 2nd amendment rights applying to each of us and not as a collective.

Corporate law has evolved.

Today the court refines it even more.

One must keep current on this topic.

[Green Arrow]

America doesn't understand the consequences. The 'corporations aren't people' line possesses a superficial popularity.

In a world where corporations aren't people and Citizens United goes the other way, well here are the consequences:

1. It means the government censors Fahrenheit 9/11 (that too was made with corporate money)
2. It means the government can censor the NY Times (that's a corporation too)
3. It means the government can censor MSNBC (because Chris Matthews expresses his opinion through a corporate channel) owned by NBC/General Electric.

And that Congress is Republican right now (sure they'd be restrained by Obama's veto of course)......

Doesn't sound so hot now. But that's what it actually DOES mean.

The press is protected explicitly by the First Amendment and there's no reason they can't be funded by the individuals within the corporation. Nice fear tactics, but I reject them out of hand.

*EDIT* Besides that, I won't cry if corporate-run press goes away. It should be deeply disturbing to all Americans that our press is basically run by corporations.

[Green Arrow]

Corporate donations have to be justified at Boards of Director meetings. A CEO cannot simply donate corporate money without disclosure or discussion.

You realize I'm not actually being serious, right?

[Dr. Who]

Well that's why its status as a closely held corporation is very relevant: "As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA.'

Because their religious conviction in this case wasn't a stretch of the imagination in a way that WOULD BE for Exxon unless Exxon had started that way.

One thing to remember about Hobby Lobby and the RFRA. The RFRA was enacted pursuant to the peyote case which was a case where the Supreme Court upheld our nation's drug laws even with respect to the religious use of drugs. Congress thought better of that and passed a STATUTE which essentially imposed a higher standard on Congress than the Supreme Court themselves actually would.

If the RFRA were truly BROAD, the Controlled Substances Act would be SWISS CHEESE already....it obviously isn't.
I understand what you are saying, but where corporations are concerned, I don't buy it. If you divorce yourself and your assets in every meaningful way from your company, then I don't believe you have the right to impose your religiosity on that corporation. It's a choice, from my point of view. You either retain that element of personal imposition of your own sensibilities and retain all of the liabilities inherent with that control, or you abdicate them for the freedom of knowing that no one can seize your personal assets. This would seem to be the best of both possible worlds where you relinquish that liability with no personal consequence so you can act like a sole proprietorship, with none of the inherent liabilities.

[del]

Does putting down the college course I took ... make you feel better?

I paid a hell of a lot for that law book for it to be brushed off.

should have opened it

[Dr. Who]

You realize I'm not actually being serious, right?
No I didn't. You need to include a smiley 'cause I'm a rather serious person and unless it's totally out in left field, I make no assumptions about people's views.

[Bob]

if the corp is a person...then the entire corporation should have to go to jail. I know there is a legal reason why that is wrong but it just proves (to me anyway) that the whole corp as person is a convenience to give them the benefits with none of the liabilities.

Several of us who studied business law have tried and tried to explain this.

You see it one way. The court is different. Because for Corporations to do many things, the people dealing with them must treat them the same as any person.

[Bob]

should have opened it

Sister, I got straight A's in all of my law courses.

[Green Arrow]

No I didn't. You need to include a smiley 'cause I'm a rather serious person and unless it's totally out in left field, I make no assumptions about people's views.

I thought suggesting CEOs get to vote twice would be considered far out in left field, but then again seeing some of the arguments made by the pro-personhood crowd in this thread, maybe that was a bad assumption :tongue:

[Dr. Who]

I thought suggesting CEOs get to vote twice would be considered far out in left field, but then again seeing some of the arguments made by the pro-personhood crowd in this thread, maybe that was a bad assumption :tongue:
I probably should have realized that you were being facetious, but sometimes libertarians have beliefs that I don't understand well, so I don't assume.

[Bob]

I understand what you are saying, but where corporations are concerned, I don't buy it. If you divorce yourself and your assets in every meaningful way from your company, then I don't believe you have the right to impose your religiosity on that corporation. It's a choice, from my point of view. You either retain that element of personal imposition of your own sensibilities and retain all of the liabilities inherent with that control, or you abdicate them for the freedom of knowing that no one can seize your personal assets. This would seem to be the best of both possible worlds where you relinquish that liability with no personal consequence so you can act like a sole proprietorship, with none of the inherent liabilities.

As I recall ... it was only over some contraceptives.

Do you honestly believe Government should force you or me to purchase things we really do not want to purchase?

This amounts to a purchase for Hobby Lobby. Why demand they do this or that with their funds?

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, emphasized the ruling’s limited scope. For starters, he said, the court ruled only that a federal religious-freedom law applied to “closely held” for-profit corporations run on religious principles. Even those corporations, he said, were unlikely to prevail if they objected to complying with other laws on religious grounds.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent sounded an alarm. She attacked the majority opinion as a radical overhaul of corporate rights, one she said could apply to all corporations and to countless laws.
The contraceptive coverage requirement was challenged by two corporations whose owners say they try to run their businesses on Christian principles: Hobby Lobby (http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/), a chain of craft stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets. The requirement has also been challenged in 50 other cases, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (http://www.becketfund.org/), which represented Hobby Lobby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0

[Dr. Who]

As I recall ... it was only over some contraceptives.

Do you honestly believe Government should force you or me to purchase things we really do not want to purchase?

This amounts to a purchase for Hobby Lobby. Why demand they do this or that with their funds?

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, emphasized the ruling’s limited scope. For starters, he said, the court ruled only that a federal religious-freedom law applied to “closely held” for-profit corporations run on religious principles. Even those corporations, he said, were unlikely to prevail if they objected to complying with other laws on religious grounds.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent sounded an alarm. She attacked the majority opinion as a radical overhaul of corporate rights, one she said could apply to all corporations and to countless laws.
The contraceptive coverage requirement was challenged by two corporations whose owners say they try to run their businesses on Christian principles: Hobby Lobby (http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/), a chain of craft stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets. The requirement has also been challenged in 50 other cases, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (http://www.becketfund.org/), which represented Hobby Lobby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0
I guess that I don't see the distinction of "closely held" in the corporation argument. Either you are a corporation or you are not.

[Bob]

I guess that I don't see the distinction of "closely held" in the corporation argument. Either you are a corporation or you are not.

The simple issue to me is can the Feds bully you into buying products you find offensive to you. They run the business entirely on religions principles.

[Dr. Who]

The simple issue to me is can the Feds bully you into buying products you find offensive to you. They run the business entirely on religions principles.
Well that is the point. Do you have any right to a "personal" point of view in a corporation. Didn't you give up that right when you became a corporation? Corps have corporate charters. Unless that includes religion, it should be a non-issue. Then federal law applies as it does to all other corporations. Unless religion was built into Hobby Lobby's corporate charter, it should be non-applicable. I am not arguing the federal ability to direct corporate funding of insurance, but only a corporation's ability to pick and choose on the basis of religion. Clearly it has a right to choose insurance on the basis of price.

[Peter1469]

America doesn't understand the consequences. The 'corporations aren't people' line possesses a superficial popularity.

In a world where corporations aren't people and Citizens United goes the other way, well here are the consequences:

1. It means the government censors Fahrenheit 9/11 (that too was made with corporate money)
2. It means the government can censor the NY Times (that's a corporation too)
3. It means the government can censor MSNBC (because Chris Matthews expresses his opinion through a corporate channel) owned by NBC/General Electric.

And that Congress is Republican right now (sure they'd be restrained by Obama's veto of course)......

Doesn't sound so hot now. But that's what it actually DOES mean.

None of that is true because of corporate personhood.

[Peter1469]

Several of us who studied business law have tried and tried to explain this.

You see it one way. The court is different. Because for Corporations to do many things, the people dealing with them must treat them the same as any person.


When are you going to tell me that corporations ought to be put in jail along with its members who commit crimes? If the answer is you can't do that, why?

Your "legal" training tells you that they must be treated the same as people, correct?

How does one put a corporation in jail? Put the corporate charter in a cell?

[The Sage of Main Street]

I agree that a corporation is the people in it.

My position is that the people in a corporation are free to give to any political cause they wish.

I would not allow the actual corporation to give. It is redundant and how can any corporation know what the political wishes are of all of its employees and shareholders?

If a corporation commits crimes, the people who are responsible can go to jail. The corporation can't go to jail. Among the Bankensteins, we should have confiscated the entire private wealth of the top echelon in order to re-fund the toxic banks, put those Banksters in prison, and give their positions to the younger generation of Wharton graduates.

[The Sage of Main Street]

PeoplePeople are people and when they hear corporations are people it just rubs them the wrong way. They conflate the legal sense of separate corporate personhood, a legal fiction, with their own individuality allowing their laymen sensibilities to be offended without ever contemplating the underlying meaning.

With respect to the V and XIV Amendments, dealing with government power, personhood is the key to Due Process. If a corporation is not a person for purposes of the V and XIV Amendment, then the government needn't provide corporations Due Process. Government wouldn't be restrained from seizing corporate assets whatsoever.

If you don't think the government should be able to seize private property without Due Process. And when phrased like that, only the most ardent proponents would object, then you actually DO think that corporations are people FOR PURPOSES OF (very important phrase in law) the V and XIV Amendments of the US Constitution. Just as they conflate "stockholders' corporate property" with true private property like their own homes and cars.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I disagree. It would be interesting to see a group of shareholders sue a board for a breach of its fiduciary duty for wasting corporate assets on a political campaign. Again, they can lobby all that they want.

And every person associated with a corporation can freely give from their own resources. Why must corporations be allowed to as well? How is it against their fiduciary duty? Bribing to get fat government contracts is one of the best investments they can make for their stockholders.

[PolWatch]

Well that is the point. Do you have any right to a "personal" point of view in a corporation. Didn't you give up that right when you became a corporation? Corps have corporate charters. Unless that includes religion, it should be a non-issue. Then federal law applies as it does to all other corporations. Unless religion was built into Hobby Lobby's corporate charter, it should be non-applicable. I am not arguing the federal ability to direct corporate funding of insurance, but only a corporation's ability to pick and choose on the basis of religion. Clearly it has a right to choose insurance on the basis of price.

The ruling means that employees do not have a right to decide how THEIR insurance dollars are spent. When you work for Hobby Lobby, they own the rights to your womb.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You never took a law course Bob.

You took an undergrad course. Law schools teach robotic students to read, write, and speak Legalese. They should be put under each university's Foreign Language Department.

[Ransom]

The ruling means that employees do not have a right to decide how THEIR insurance dollars are spent. When you work for Hobby Lobby, they own the rights to your womb.

A false statement but then it's what I've come to expect.

For a Bugs fan, you don't use truth in your debate style. This one a blatant untruth and will be called out. Bull shat alarm just went off after that post, PolWatch, and the saddest part of that sound is you know why it went off.

You're practicing:poopfan:tactics

[Bob]

Well that is the point. Do you have any right to a "personal" point of view in a corporation. Didn't you give up that right when you became a corporation? Corps have corporate charters. Unless that includes religion, it should be a non-issue. Then federal law applies as it does to all other corporations. Unless religion was built into Hobby Lobby's corporate charter, it should be non-applicable. I am not arguing the federal ability to direct corporate funding of insurance, but only a corporation's ability to pick and choose on the basis of religion. Clearly it has a right to choose insurance on the basis of price.

It occurs to me you need to get to know Hobby Lobby.

This explains them and should answer all of your questions.

Rather than quote part of it, let me say after reading this, I admire them a lot more. They are very generous to the employees. They give them very great benefits. They put a lot of effort in employees ability to earn well and be with family and put the job down the list of religious principles. Family first is my meaning.

http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobbyfactsheet/

By the way, my Corporation was closely held though a regular corporation as opposed to the S Corp. My first wife and I made all decisions since we were the sole stock owners. My office then had 1 secretary and the rest of staff were contract workers who paid all their own benefits since the pay was very generous to them.

[Bob]

The ruling means that employees do not have a right to decide how THEIR insurance dollars are spent. When you work for Hobby Lobby, they own the rights to your womb.

Why not read this first before you accuse Hobby Lobby?

http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobbyfactsheet/

[Bob]

When are you going to tell me that corporations ought to be put in jail along with its members who commit crimes? If the answer is you can't do that, why?

Your "legal" training tells you that they must be treated the same as people, correct?

How does one put a corporation in jail? Put the corporate charter in a cell?

Peter, you must be confused.

I had no legal training in criminal law. It is my belief that those working for the Corporation who violated laws are prosecuted.

I simply know about formation of Corporations and what the law says about them being treated in the fashion of people. I am not the only poster that has explained this.

As to matters of Criminal law, I believe you have the legal training required to answer your own question.

[PolWatch]

A false statement but then it's what I've come to expect.

For a Bugs fan, you don't use truth in your debate style. This one a blatant untruth and will be called out. Bull shat alarm just went off after that post, PolWatch, and the saddest part of that sound is you know why it went off.

You're practicing:poopfan:tactics

nice picture of you Ransom...self portrait?

[Hal Jordan]

nice picture of you Ransom...self portrait?

It's like he's licking it after it hits him... This disturbs me...

[Peter1469]

Bob, I am not confused, I am making an analogy for people who say corporations people. If they are people they should be treated like people. Of course a corporation cannot be put in jail..., get it yet?

If every person associated with a corporation can donate money to politics as they see fit, what need is there to allow the corporation to also donate? Get it yet?

They are not treated like people in every way. We established that above.


Peter, you must be confused.

I had no legal training in criminal law. It is my belief that those working for the Corporation who violated laws are prosecuted.

I simply know about formation of Corporations and what the law says about them being treated in the fashion of people. I am not the only poster that has explained this.

As to matters of Criminal law, I believe you have the legal training required to answer your own question.

[Bob]

Bob, I am not confused, I am making an analogy for people who say corporations people. If they are people they should be treated like people. Of course a corporation cannot be put in jail..., get it yet?

If every person associated with a corporation can donate money to politics as they see fit, what need is there to allow the corporation to also donate? Get it yet?

They are not treated like people in every way. We established that above.

I have yet to claim corporations are treated as people in every respect.

Don't know why you don't yet get it.

[Peter1469]

I have yet to claim corporations are treated as people in every respect.

Don't know why you don't yet get it.

No crawfishing allowed.

[Bob]

No crawfishing allowed.

Get real, were they treated in all respects as people, there would be prisons with corporations as inmates.

[donttread]

If corporations are "people" they have the rights of people without the responsibilities. If a corporation is a "person" when they break the law they should be tried as a person . Instead of prison they would be disbanded

[Newpublius]

Bob, I am not confused, I am making an analogy for people who say corporations people. If they are people they should be treated like people. Of course a corporation cannot be put in jail..., get it yet?

If every person associated with a corporation can donate money to politics as they see fit, what need is there to allow the corporation to also donate? Get it yet?

They are not treated like people in every way. We established that above.

Well a corporation itself, merely being a shell, can never actually be the agency in question. A corporation can and IS held VICARIOUSLY liable, usually civil but also criminal, for the acts of its corporate agents/employees.

[Newpublius]

Corporations = people is a shorthand for the more onerous "LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE personhood (separate from their owners).....I mean seriously, holy mother of God already....

[Bob]

Well a corporation itself, merely being a shell, can never actually be the agency in question. A corporation can and IS held VICARIOUSLY liable, usually civil but also criminal, for the acts of its corporate agents/employees.

That is my understanding.

If you notice, most of us speak of corporations as if they are people.

Example: General motors is a lousy corporation. Sounds like it has people features.

[Bo-4]

Well cool, a sweet fail at 22-7.

Jesus God, As to you 7 folks who SERIOUSLY believe that corporations are people (my friend) SERIOUSLY believe such BS?

If so, ICK!!

[Bob]

Well cool, a sweet fail at 22-7.

Jesus God, do you naysayers SERIOUSLY believe that corporations are people (my friend).

If so, ICK!!

This is a case where it does not matter what I believe, it is what the law declares.

One way to get it is to ask who created corporations? Actually you may say people, but it was Government. Is Government people?

[del]

soylent green is people

[Bo-4]

This is a case where it does not matter what I believe, it is what the law declares.

One way to get it is to ask who created corporations? Actually you may say people, but it was Government. Is Government people?

No Bob, yet again you are full of very smelly CRAP.

[Bob]

No Bob, yet again you are full of very smelly CRAP.

I see, the proper way to deal with you is to reply to you as you do to me?

[Bo-4]

soylent green is people

OH NOOOOOO!!

Unless of course the Simpson's version! ;-)

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/0/07/Soylentgreen.gif/revision/latest?cb=20100129235332

[donttread]

Corporations = people is a shorthand for the more onerous "LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE personhood (separate from their owners).....I mean seriously, holy mother of God already....


Thay have the rights of a person without the responsibilities. Holding them accountable for their actions would help kill the megacorps

[Ransom]

Well cool, a sweet fail at 22-7.

Jesus God, As to you 7 folks who SERIOUSLY believe that corporations are people (my friend) SERIOUSLY believe such BS?

If so, ICK!!

Oh, I count 8 once we go to tax this corporation like anyone else paying income tax....constituents like Bo tax the feces out of that corporation, but pretend it's the only voice they have.

Not so. And you'll note, unions never mentioned here, must you ask why? Fake outrage, pretend nonsense.

Next.