Has anyone ever challenged corporate personhood before Supreme Court?

[yurbud]

[Kagemusha]

1. Yeah. Court basically said, yes, it was a bad decision technically,

but we can't go back now, it'll wreck the country's finances and it's already settled law.

Hence that decision is much hated by certain people.

[Fridays Child]

2. When was that opinion handed down?

According to the documentary, "The Corporation," corporate personhood is a perversion of the Fourteenth Amendment. As I read the that amendment, I'm not sure how it provides any protection for corporations or allows them to define themselves as "persons."

[yurbud]

3. clerk wrote a note on an unrelated decision

and the note somehow gained the weight of a court decision.

[pnorman]

4. That's the sum and substance of it.

I'll go along with the idea that summarily declaring that interpretation "unconstitutional". could pretty well wreck the economy. But I see nothing wrong with letting the American citizen aware of just how BOGUS the "exalted" status of Corporate America really is. Perhaps, it could be the basis of getting some REAL corporate responsibility laws on the books ... like bringing them back to the USA and putting a rein on outsourcing.

Incidentally, the late 19th century Populist movement was well on the way towards introducing major aspects of what we would call New Deal legislation ... wages & hours, child labor, food and drug, factory safety, regulating railroads and cartels, etc. The Populists were powerful in the west, midwest and south, but their appeal was spreading eastwards. But all those state laws were declared unconstitutional, by that spurious interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Thereafter, much-needed social legislation had to come through by a strained interporetation of Congress's power to legislate on Interstate Commerce. That forced the reformers to put their faith in Big Government and it's inevitable consequent --- a bloated bureaucracy that inevitably gets corrupted.

pnorman

[A Simple Game]

8. Corporations may be personified,

but if their headquarters are outside the US, then they are not "citizens".

Perhaps this could be used against them?

[yurbud]

13. can we classify then unlawful combatants, send them to Gitmo and

have dogs bite their nads?

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Heheheh

[yurbud]

19. if you encourage me, it will only get worse

[Aviation Pro]

5. Based on this logic the right to an abortion is safe.

eom

[yurbud]

14. okay, you have to connect the dots on that one for me.

[Sgent]

6. "Corporate Personhood"

has been around since the late 1400's in the form of Royal Charters. I don't see how they could be changed now.

All US Corporations are creations of the State, presumably for the purpose of furthering state interests. They are subject to state regulations, etc.

Foriegn corporations which desire the ability to conduct business in a given state must also be awarded that privlidge by the state.

[acmejack]

7. It must be changed!

It has been that way for centuries is not a valid defense, IMO. It will be changed, sooner by our lawmakers, or later, by the people. The New Deal was only enacted to mollify the popular dissent and keep the people under control. Those who forget the lessons of the past, etc, etc, think France 1789.

[yurbud]

15. "furthering STATE interests" is the part that's gotten lost

That would make corporations something like nationalized oil companies, defense industries or airlines.

[Greyhound]

23. True... and not

they have not been 'persons' since the 1400's that is a purely contemporary mistake.

[Liberty2001]

9. Corporate personhood ...

Started a long time ago.

Under the 14th Amendment a corporation is not a "citizen" (except that they consider a corporation a "citizen" of the State of incorporation for the purpose of determining jurisdiction) ... and a corporation doesn't have the rights of a "citizen" (like your 5th Amendment rights for example).

It's a little different calling a corporation a "person" though ... because the idea was around well before the founding of this country that corporations could be considered "persons" ... although they were obviously classed as "artificial persons".

The 14th Amendment uses the words "citizen" and "person" ... and a corporation is considered one ("person") but not the other ("citizen"). So when the 14th Amendment says that no State shall deprive any "person" of life, liberty or property, nor deny any "person" equal protection of the laws ... the word "person" was held to encompass corporations as well.

Like I said ... it was not a new idea.

[pnorman]

11. The essential point of this isn't about whether or not

corporations are "legal". It has to do with HOW they came to be considered to be what the 14th Amendment was enacted for. Ironically, the recently freed Negro, in whose behalf this Amendment was enacted, got very little benefit from it until "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 ... almost a century later!

"Original Intent" is how clerical-fascists like Scalia are trying to undo much of the latter half of the 20th Century. Okay, let them CHOKE over "Original Intent"! Many of our Founding Fathers were very clear on this. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind, although there are others.

pnorman

[yurbud]

20. ORIGINAL INTENT--great idea

[yurbud]

21. that's worth posting somewhere righties can see it like Coulter board

on yahoo

[yurbud]

17. it sure seems like they have been granted rights of citizen

[patcox2]

10. The more recent decisions from the 70s recognize corps personhood

The decisions that held that corporations have free speach rights, for example, are based on the "personhood" of the corporation.

Its very firmly established, only an amendment would change it.

[pnorman]

12. "based on the 'personhood' of the corporation."

Then they are based on an illegitimate interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It's sustained by armies of corporation lawyers. But it's unseemly for the victims to lend support to that. Let's keep reminding all who'll listen that it's a LIE! ... make those whores earn their keep.

pnorman
On edit: I think this discussion is very important, and I just went back and gave it a recomendation. Consider doing likewise.

[yurbud]

18. I would, but I started it

[Sgent]

22. I don't understand the

people who bring up the 14th amendment.

Corporations have been around long before that was passed, and existed in much the same way as they do today.

Your A&P existed as a corporate entity before the 14th amendment was passed, as well as a large number of other corporations. Take a look at the Secretary of State's Office for any of the 13 original colonies -- you see charters issued before the Revolutionary War.

Its not the problem of personhood, its crappy regulation by the states and federal governments.