Recent Trends in Corporate Personhood and the Overexpansion of Corporate Rights

[de officiis]

A Step Too Far: Recent Trends in Corporate Personhood and the Overexpansion of Corporate Rights

James Wright - 49 J. Marshall L. Rev. 889 (Spring 2016)

This Comment examines the transformation of corporate personhood in American law. It challenges the logic currently used to interpret and support corporate personhood, logic that permits and even demands continued corporate right expansions. To achieve this goal, Part II of this Comment divides Supreme Court case law concerning corporate personhood into three eras: the Early Era, the Intermediate Era and the Current Era. Next, Part III of this Comment illustrates the rationale supported during each era, the historical legacy of these laws, and their relation to a continuously transforming concept of corporate personhood. Finally, Part IV of this Comment challenges the current conceptual understanding of corporate personhood under an aggregate theory of corporations. It proposes returning to a natural entity theory for interpreting corporate personhood by limiting new expansions to issues directly related to economic efficiency, rather than religious or political rights. Natural entity theory is superior to aggregate entity theory because it supports a clear and strong division between a corporation and its owners and is conducive to corporate limited liability.

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcont ... =lawreview

[SuburbanFarmer]

Corporate Personhood is an oxymoron. The ultimate manifestation of our whore government.

[Penner]

Corporate Personhood is an oxymoron. The ultimate manifestation of our whore government.

Yeah, declaring that a corporation is a person is one of the worst decisions that ever came out of our courts.

[Speaker to Animals]

Corporations, by definition, are legal persons. Otherwise you'd not be able to tax them, sue them, etc.

[Martin Hash]

Corporations, by definition, are legal persons. Otherwise you'd not be able to tax them, sue them, etc.

WTF?! Debating Fallacies

[Speaker to Animals]

Corporations, by definition, are legal persons. Otherwise you'd not be able to tax them, sue them, etc.

WTF?! Debating Fallacies

Huh?

A corporation is literally a legal fiction assigning legal personhood.

corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... orporation

[Martin Hash]

Corporations, by definition, are legal persons. Otherwise you'd not be able to tax them, sue them, etc.

WTF?! Debating Fallacies

Huh?

A corporation is literally a legal fiction assigning legal personhood.

corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... orporation

Can a corporation adopt a child?
Can a corporation vote?
Can a corporation serve in the armed forces?
The whole problem with the Citizens United decision is that it confuses corporations with persons, giving corporations some of the Rights of persons, like Freedom of Speech. A corporation should NOT have any of those Rights, only people should.

[Speaker to Animals]

WTF?! Debating Fallacies

Huh?

A corporation is literally a legal fiction assigning legal personhood.

corporation
n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... orporation

Can a corporation adopt a child?
Can a corporation vote?
Can a corporation serve in the armed forces?
The whole problem with the Citizens United decision is that it confuses corporations with persons, giving corporations some of the Rights of persons, like Freedom of Speech. A corporation should NOT have any of those Rights, only people should.

What does that have to do with my post?

You and others were complaining about corporate personhood itself, which is a rejection of corporations altogether.

At least be honest about it. You oppose the assignment to corporate personhood the rights of the freedom of speech. Limit the discussion to what you actually oppose instead of tossing out vague slogans.

[Martin Hash]

Being able to sue someone is not a Constitutional Right, and taxing is a governmental function regardless of legal doctrine. People have Rights, corporations should not. Perhaps you aren't arguing that they should but you should say so. Your posting implies that corporations do & should have Rights.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Being able to sue someone is not a Constitutional Right....

Redress of grievances.