Could the Congress Define Personhood?

[ThomWV]

Were it possibly to get the votes for a Joint Resolution of Congress would a properly worded resolution be sufficient to derail the recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign donations? Couldn't the Congress simply state that in all laws written by them the intent is that the law be read such that a person is a thing with blood in its veins and lives and breaths, or once did?

[FLDCVADem]

1. I don't think it could be a resolution

or a law - I think it would have to be a Constitutional amendment, which won't happen.

[mmonk]

2. An amendment effort though would be good strategy whether

successful or not. We gained better law and legal protections in the effort to ratify the ERA.

[ThomWV]

3. I don't see how the 'effort' could change established law

Its not like politics in the sense that the court can't control what cases come to it to fit the public mood. Elected officials might respect a large public effort, but seated judges not only can't, but even if they could they should not. Law needs to be more stable than that. And maybe that's the flaw in my idea. Maybe even allowing the congress to set the rules sucks, because like Massachusetts and the Governor appointment thing, its just not good policy to flip flop.

[mmonk]

7. The effort creates strategies for new legal strategies and law attempts.

If you have a bad law, new laws can be attempted to rectify the damage, whether on the federal or the state levels.

[rug]

4. If it can declare humans to be property and corporations to be persons

it can declare what a person is for urposes of legal protection and liability.

It does not require a constitutional amendment, just constitutional review.

[FLDCVADem]

5. It would be pointless

to pass a law defining personhood knowing that the law would be overturned by the Supreme Court. A waste of time and effort.

A Constitutional amendment can't be overturned by the court, so it's really the only way to overcome the recent decision.

[rug]

8. The law can't be overturned if it's constitutional.

For purposes of applicability, the definition is well within Congress' powers.

[GreenEyedLefty]

6. Congress would do really well to tread carefully when defining personhood

I fear the consequences for reproductive choice.

[ThomWV]

9. Very good point!

[Lost4words]

10. they have , a person is a corporation of 5000 employees or more.

anything less simply cannot support lobbyist and there for have no rights.