Potentially stupid, uninformed question about the 14th amendment:

[arcane1]

Based on two assumptions, of which I could be wrong:

-The 14th basically outlawed slavery and more clearly defined the rights of a person

-The 14th is where the concept of "corporate personhood" comes from.

So, wouldn't that also make it illegal for one corporation to buy another one, and take ownership of it? Especially if it's a hostile takeover?

Hmm... now that I think about it, wouldn't a corporate merger be considered a marriage, and therefore they can only have one at a time?


***on edit: question, dammit! :)

**bonus extra edit for getting the numbers wrong :(

[Quantess]

1. I love quastions

That's mostly all I wanted to say, but also, I think your opponent has solid grounds for that statement.

[midnight]

2. K&R for those who know more about the law...

[geckosfeet]

3. Good questions. I am no leagal eagle but common sense says that

if they can have a voice in the political system they should also be subject other legal aspects of "personhood".

[L0oniX]

4. Deleted

[FarLeftFist]

5. Corporations and slavery go hand in hand. Great quastion!

[banned from Kos]

6. the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery

The decision on Corp personhood was a small part of a railroad SCOTUS case that was based on a clerk's misfiling.

[arcane1]

8. Like I said, I could be wrong :)

But you get the idea, right?

[banned from Kos]

9. you should like this - a one page primer on how corp personhood came to be

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

"One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

[NoGOPZone]

7. The 13th amendment outlawed slavery nt

[Quantess]

11. .

[Xicano]

10. As much as I hate to point this out

The 14th amendment as written and interpreted by law does indeed seem to grant corporations personhood.

Here's a pic I took from my legal dictionary. As you can see from a legal standpoint, a corporation is considered an "artificial person" "having all rights and duties" as a human being who's considered a "natural person."









So it would be my opinion in order to strip corporations of rights equal to people. Section one of the 14th amendment should be changed to look like this:

14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person individual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[rgbecker]

18. Nice job, I vote to admend.

Also "deprive any (individual) of life, liberty, or property...etc. "

[Xicano]

22. Thanks rgbecker

And thanks for pointing the other word person I forgot to amend.. Ooops how did I miss that? :)

:hi:

[Riftaxe]

19. Would this not leave the Government

with no legal basis to enforce contracts between corporations (like DU) and people?

While a pay as you go society might be good for many things, i can think of a few that would truly suck.

[Whiskeytide]

12. I like where you're going with this...

...So if a tech company merges with another tech company, maybe that is a same sex marriage? And if Exxon takes over a young, newly formed petroleum company, could we prosecute them as a pedophile? I think we should take this to a DA somewhere and let him present a case to a Grand Jury and prosecute a rape, bigamy or same sex charge just to show how silly "corporations are people too" really is. If nothing else, it'll make Hannity's and O'Reilly's heads spin around.

[unblock]

13. you seem to be suggesting that corporations should have ALL the EXACT same rights as humans

the notorious 1886 supreme court decision is the foundation on which rests the notion that corporations are "persons" in the sense that they have certain legal rights, in particular, access to the courts (standing to sue) and so on.

it does not follow that every right that humans have should apply to these artificial entities as well.
in particular, what exactly does "slavery" mean when applied to an artificial construct? well, a corporation can't be made to do something it doesn't want to do (other than abide by laws, just like humans), unless it had agreed to this voluntarily.



i think much of the confusion on this matter stem from the use of the legal term "person", which means one thing to lawyers but another thing to most humans. thus there's a temptation to apply human things to all legal "persons" even when it doesn't make any sense.

[arcane1]

15. I'm thinking they should NOT, and trying to figure out how to limit them

But you're right, it all comes down to the term "person". Since they have power that is by definition "limited liability", and can affect actual living persons in such great numbers, I'm grasping for that straw that would hold them back :)

[Terry in Austin]

14. Corporate personhood

The concept was actually introduced by railroad lawyers in the 1886 SCOTUS Santa Clara case, and reinforced by judicial case law in many subsequent cases.

Many of the cases invoked the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment, creating one of our enduring constitutional ironies -- that the protections of the 14th amendment have been used to protect businesses much more often than for the class of people it was originally intended to protect.

But your basic point stands, that absurd results can come from the tortured logic of regarding corporations as "persons."

[arcane1]

16. I'm desperate to find a hole in that tortured logic n/t

[Riftaxe]

20. Actually it was introduced 68 years earlier

in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1818)

[Recursion]

17. Corporate personhood has existed in some degree since the corporation was invented

It's the only way corporations can be sued.

[DavidDvorkin]

21. I think the basic legal principle in America is that

corporations are persons when it's to their advantage to be so and are not when it's not.

[MFrohike]

23. The 14th

The essence of the 14th is its link between the national government and the citizens. It defines a clear link of citizenship, not only of a state but of the country as a whole. It's the basis of civil rights legislation.

The issue of corporate personhood and the 14th amendment should not be problem. The word person, according to the rules of constitutional construction, should be read as "natural person." This is the normal meaning of the word. No one ever, in normal conversation, refers to corporations as people.

The greater issue is the rights of the corporation. It's not unreasonable to allow a corporation to sue and be sued, to appear on its own behalf in court, be taxed as a legal entity, etc. It is unreasonable to confuse a legal fiction with a natural person (Citizens United). That being said, I think the issue is less the corporation as an entity and more the people that comprise it.