125 Years of Corporate Personhood is Enough!

[Donnachaidh]

http://movetoamend.org/action/125-years-corporate-personhood-enough

May 2011 marks the 125th anniversary of the Supreme Court granting corporations the rights of human beings. That’s right, Corporate Personhood didn’t begin with Citizens United!



In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that under the law corporations were “persons” and gave them the same rights as human beings. But a corporation exists only on paper. It is simply a legal creation that allows a group of people to engage in activities as a single entity.

Democracy means that We the People rule. But with the help of corporate personhood, corporations are ruling us! This is not democracy.

Corporate personhood is neither logical nor legitimate. It was invented by corporate lawyers to obtain big advantages for a few people over the rest of us. As a result, giant corporations are able to act with little concern for the future of life. They are doing enormous damage to working people, small businesses, communities, the environment, and democratic processes.

More at the link --

[SpiralHawk]

1. "You smelly American proles can just STFU and sit down." - RepubliCorp, Inc. (R)

"You smelly proles better damn just STFU, be sure to pay your taxes and ours, and stay tuned to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox and other other overpaid Chickenhawk propaganda pimps. If we want any 'citizenship' shit out of you, we will squeeze your asses. That is all."

- RepubliCorp, Inc. (R)

[Riftaxe]

2. With dissolution of this fiction, how would you solve

the reasons it was necessary in the first place? Especially since the "push" article conveniently gleans over the salient facts that brought it about.

[brewens]

3. All the people that are part of the corporation each have the

same rights as any of us do. The corporation having it's own rights in effect gives each of those people extra special rights we don't get. They can vote and make their political contributions just like we do, then the corporation piles on as well. Those people would have always had an advantage anyway without the corporate personhood.

[Riftaxe]

4. I wouldn't mind telling my public utilities, hospital or

any corporation I contractually owe money to shove it and not have to worry about legal consequences. But voiding contract law by revoking 14th amendment protections would work both ways. Corporations would no longer have to honor the fact that I have prepaid for the medications I need, or could take my money and never deliver services (since the advocated action would void any existing and new contracts with corporations).

So in order for me to join such a movement of anarchy, what will replace the legal fiction of "corporate person hood"?

[Warpy]

5. The term was unfortunate and poorly defined at the time

Yes, corporations needed to have the legal right to enter into contracts and disburse or collect money accordingly, but in no way should they have ever been named "persons," which they are not. They're cartels.

Likewise, the labeling of corporate money as equivalent to the free speech enjoyed by human beings is equally preposterous. Money is property.

Since the whole personhood argument was proposed by a clerk and not by the Court itself, it's overdue to be revisited, but not by this court. Other courts have been remiss in not doing so.

[Vincardog]

6. The Supreme Court did NOT grant corporations the rights of human beings. A LYING SC clerk did it.