Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Do those silly personhood amendments cover corporations?

Posted by on Jul. 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM
  • 7 Replies

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

http://www.personhoodusa.com/what-is-personhood

They make it pretty clear that corporations aren't people. How do conservatives reconcile that?

by on Jul. 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-7):
Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.

UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM


Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM


Quoting UpSheRises:


Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Obviously, a corporation is not a legal person.  A company does not get charged with murder if it puts another company out of business.  A company is not allowed to vote.  What is the reasonable meaning, then, it means that a corpoaration is comprised of real people, as are unions, or schools, or nations.  If something affects a union, a school, a nation, or corporation, it will affect people. 


The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Raintree
by Ruby Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM


Quoting UpSheRises:


Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Certain constitutional protections are extended to corporations.

UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting UpSheRises:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Obviously, a corporation is not a legal person.  A company does not get charged with murder if it puts another company out of business.  A company is not allowed to vote.  What is the reasonable meaning, then, it means that a corpoaration is comprised of real people, as are unions, or schools, or nations.  If something affects a union, a school, a nation, or corporation, it will affect people. 


If it's not a person then why does it have the same rights are people under the law? I mean, a state is comprised of real people but it doesn't share the same rights as people. I'm not trying to be a jerk, i just don't understand why a non-person needs free speech. 

If the people that make up the corporation have it, why don't they just use it? It seems like double dipping if you get to speak for yourself and your company when actually human beings only get to speak for themselves.  

UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM


Quoting Raintree:


Quoting UpSheRises:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Certain constitutional protections are extended to corporations.

I am aware of that...That's why i posed the question. They weren't extended by the constitution, they were granted by the SCOTUS on behalf of the constitution..totally different. 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Where do they have "special rights" regarding free speech? 


Quoting UpSheRises:


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting UpSheRises:


Quoting Meadowchik:

Of course being corporation does not imply legal personhood. I haven't heard anyone actually claiming that.  Certainly SCOTUS did not affirm that.  With the Citizens United case, SCOTUS affirmed that individuals do not forfeit their free speech rights when they speak as a group.


Then what do people mean when they say things like "Corporations are people?". Why do we call them corporations if they are actually people?

Obviously, a corporation is not a legal person.  A company does not get charged with murder if it puts another company out of business.  A company is not allowed to vote.  What is the reasonable meaning, then, it means that a corpoaration is comprised of real people, as are unions, or schools, or nations.  If something affects a union, a school, a nation, or corporation, it will affect people. 


If it's not a person then why does it have the same rights are people under the law? I mean, a state is comprised of real people but it doesn't share the same rights as people. I'm not trying to be a jerk, i just don't understand why a non-person needs free speech. 

If the people that make up the corporation have it, why don't they just use it? It seems like double dipping if you get to speak for yourself and your company when actually human beings only get to speak for themselves.  


The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)