Corporate Personhood

[astonmartin708]

I was rereading the Majority opinions in the Citizens United case yesterday and a bit more about caselaw regarding corporate personhood. Of all the amendments that I believe the constitution could use; a change to the legal status of corporations is the most important one.

We all know that 95% of employees in a corporation aren't allowed to voice their personal beliefs as the beliefs of their company. That right is reserved for executives and executives only. If McDonalds comes out for or against a certain piece of legislation (say a tax cut) it's not like their CEO is doing internal polling of all of the company's employees. The CEO may or may not be acting in the best interest of his employees by supporting or opposing legislation.

Now, the problem is... federal case law is pretty dead set on corporate personhood going back to the early 1800's. And in some cases it makes sense. Chief Justice John Marshall stated: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Treating corporations as having legal rights allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

This is all fine until you come to the 1st Amendment and the employees of corporations' voices being unrepresented despite corporations lobbying for certain changes in legal policy. I'm sure there's a chunk of GE employees that wouldn't always agree with every policy change GE has paid to lobby for or against. The same goes for Verizon; and a slew of other large multinational companies with huge lobbying arms.

For these reasons it seems that a distinction needs to be made between corporations acting as conglomerated entities for purposes of social efficiency and corporations' inability or unwillingness to operate as public interest groups where votes are taken on issues that the management wants to lobby for. Corporations are the only groups that get to lobby the government where the people who are being "lobbied for" don't get to elect their leaders. I'm afraid the only way to change this; and make some kind of distinction between corporations as public entities and corporations as non-representative conglomerates is by a constitutional amendment because of the current case law.

 

[TUMe]

Your favorite amendment will have the same result as all of your other amendments. That is not to say either way about the merits.

The 27th Amendment nicknamed "The Rip Van Winkle Amendment" took 200 years to ratify. The Amendment process is so difficult and the country is so divided that, good or bad, amendments don't happen The RVWA was 26 years ago. An amendment has to be a no brainer like letting 18 year olds vote when 18 year olds are fighting for their country. That was done in 1971 as the 26th Amendment. That is two in the last 47 years.

Good luck.

 

[astonmartin708]

Your favorite amendment will have the same result as all of your other amendments. That is not to say either way about the merits.

The 27th Amendment nicknamed "The Rip Van Winkle Amendment" took 200 years to ratify. The Amendment process is so difficult and the country is so divided that, good or bad, amendments don't happen The RVWA was 26 years ago. An amendment has to be a no brainer like letting 18 year olds vote when 18 year olds are fighting for their country. That was done in 1971 as the 26th Amendment. That is two in the last 47 years.

Good luck.

I'm aware of the difficulty of getting an amendment passed. But this one is actually important for the integrity of our nation and the rights of citizens to be heard on legislative issues. They're currently being drown out by corporate $$$

 

[astonmartin708]

Very interesting history here. If you start to research the history of the Citizens U case law you very quickly (only about 3 degrees of separation) get to a corporate lawyer and former US Senator Roscoe Conkling producing a handwritten note to the SCOTUS from when he had been on the committee drafting the 14th amendment. Some people believe this note to have been forged; but Conkling argued that the committee had specifically addressed the protections of the 14th to "persons" instead of "citizens" so they could apply it to corporations. There should be no surprise from anyone that he was representing a Railroad company at the time.

 

[TUMe]

Very interesting history here. If you start to research the history of the Citizens U case law you very quickly (only about 3 degrees of separation) get to a corporate lawyer and former US Senator Roscoe Conkling producing a handwritten note to the SCOTUS from when he had been on the committee drafting the 14th amendment. Some people believe this note to have been forged; but Conkling argued that the committee had specifically addressed the protections of the 14th to "persons" instead of "citizens" so they could apply it to corporations. There should be no surprise from anyone that he was representing a Railroad company at the time.

And that may come into play when the census is taken and the question of citizenship is asked or not asked.

 

[astonmartin708]

Conkling was an interesting figure. He was revered among the Republican party of old and was one of the key party bosses in the Antebellum Era. Has a statue in one of the NYC parks. He was nominated to be on the SCOTUS twice and was actually confirmed by the Senate before withdrawing his name. He seemed to be pretty corrupt though. He led a party faction called the "Stalwarts" against the "Half-Breeds" in efforts to derail Civil Service Reform and to preserve the spoils system in Washington. I'm leaning toward believing that his assertion that corporations were to be "persons" was probably erroneous and self serving / corrupt.

There have been several SCOTUS justices that shared that view and said the 14th was specifically to protect individual freedoms to the freed slaves. They've argued that corporations don't enjoy certain personal benefits / protections like the right to marry, or protection from self incrimination (5th amendment protection). Most notable of these was the conservative Rehnquist. He said that corporations while beneficial in the economic realm were dangerous in the political realm and should not be allowed the same protections as individuals in all cases.

 

[TU_BLA]

Conkling was an interesting figure. He was revered among the Republican party of old and was one of the key party bosses in the Antebellum Era. Has a statue in one of the NYC parks. He was nominated to be on the SCOTUS twice and was actually confirmed by the Senate before withdrawing his name. He seemed to be pretty corrupt though. He led a party faction called the "Stalwarts" against the "Half-Breeds" in efforts to derail Civil Service Reform and to preserve the spoils system in Washington. I'm leaning toward believing that his assertion that corporations were to be "persons" was probably erroneous and self serving / corrupt.

There have been several SCOTUS justices that shared that view and said the 14th was specifically to protect individual freedoms to the freed slaves. They've argued that corporations don't enjoy certain personal benefits / protections like the right to marry, or protection from self incrimination (5th amendment protection). Most notable of these was the conservative Rehnquist. He said that corporations while beneficial in the economic realm were dangerous in the political realm and should not be allowed the same protections as individuals in all cases.

No! You lie. Rehnquist is a Reagan nominee and thus among the greatest Republicans to ever walk the Earth. He revered God only.

Oh wait...Republicans before 1996 didn't act so uptight about everything in the social realm. Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he knew the current GOP equated their current stupidity to his policy stances. Reagan couldn't even get nominated by the GOP these days.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

No! You lie. Rehnquist is a Reagan nominee and thus among the greatest Republicans to ever walk the Earth. He revered God only.

Oh wait...Republicans before 1996 didn't act so uptight about everything in the social realm. Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he knew the current GOP equated their current stupidity to his policy stances. Reagan couldn't even get nominated by the GOP these days.

I thought Trump was Reagan reincarnated?

 

[TU_BLA]

I thought Trump was Reagan reincarnated?

Wanna piss off a Republican? Tell them Clinton was far closer in political policy making to Reagan than any Republican nominated for President since 2000. And it's the truth. Clinton was far more moderate than anyone cares to believe or recall. Visit the Clinton Library in Little Rock and read through the list of foreign policy stances and bills he signed...

 

[lawpoke87]

I think Clinton is a perfect example of what the political parties were and are today. Clinton was a true moderate. One might argue in today's climate that Dubya was a moderate. Both parties have gone to the extremes....and yes...Clinton and Reagan were much closer as far as ideology then either political party wants to acknowledge.

 

[astonmartin708]

I think Clinton is a perfect example of what the political parties were and are today. Clinton was a true moderate. One might argue in today's climate that Dubya was a moderate. Both parties have gone to the extremes....and yes...Clinton and Reagan were much closer as far as ideology then either political party wants to acknowledge.

W. was fiscally moderate. Socially and geopolitically conservative.

 

[TUMe]

I agree with everyone, but I will say that he became more moderate after the Democrats lost Congress. Remember initially he had his [or Hillary's] plans to change health care.

 

[TU_BLA]

I agree with everyone, but I will say that he became more moderate after the Democrats lost Congress. Remember initially he had his [or Hillary's] plans to change health care.

And why is that a bad thing? That was about the time health care costs, pharmaceuticals, etc. started to skyrocket.

 

[TU_BLA]

W. was fiscally moderate. Socially and geopolitically conservative.

I think W was more centrist as well...the issue was he surrounded himself with guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld who had bought into Ginrich's contract for America. Remember, prior to that there was no social and geopolitical conservatism as a party platform. Watch some of the old debates between Reagan and H.W. Bush and the stance on immigration, education, etc. They were much more humane. Even they talked about welfare reform but it wasn't about removing the $$$ as much as it was about making sure the $$$ wasn't being wasted.

And still, the last President to have a balanced budget plus budget surplus at the end of the FY is Clinton.

 

[TUMe]

And why is that a bad thing? That was about the time health care costs, pharmaceuticals, etc. started to skyrocket.

I don't remember saying it was a bad thing . Like everyone else I was just going through history .

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Wow an issue the majority of us can all agree on. Until aTUfan starts coming in here with his obsession babble about Hillary & Bill. He'll use that to somehow light into W Bush?

 

[Watu3]

W. was fiscally moderate. Socially and geopolitically conservative.

Interesting. I recall on this board there was an active debate about Dubya's excessive spending, cutting taxes, and moving from a budget surplus to doubling the national debt. Some argued that it was ok as the US always funded its wars on debt. Of course, when Obama took office, the wailing about debt was legion. Now with Trumpie at the helm....not so much.

Dubya may have been moderate but it took him at least one term to take some of the reins back from a very conservative core group.

 

[aTUfan]

If the government makes all your decesuons, then it not your gault.