Corporate Personhood

[Dorfsmith]

I was recently contacted by some progressives in my town asking if they could get the libertarians behind this resolution. I am not a fan at all of Constitutional Amendments and I have some very mixed feelings about the proposal. Since I respect all of your opinions, I thought I would submit it to you for feedback. The more I think about it the more it concerns me. Even the ACLU considers money to be free speech: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-urges-no-vote-disclose-act

Here's the Resolution:

Resolution to Free Democracy from Corporate Control

Be It Resolved that the __________ City Council calls for freeing democracy from corporate control by amending the US Constitution to establish that:

1. Money is not speech.

2. Corporations are not natural persons and not entitled to constitutional rights.

Be It Further Resolved that the ___________ City Council requests that our elected members of the U.S. Congress and the State of Arizona Legislature introduce a constitutional amendment that contains both of these principles, or introduce motions to include these principles in related constitutional amendments,

Be It Further Resolved that the ___________ City Council supports education to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the threats to democracy posed by corporate personhood to build understanding and consensus on appropriate community and municipal responses to those threats.

Be It Further Resolved that the ___________ City Council supports the Progressive Democrats of Northern Arizona in hosting town meetings to draft an ordinance or ordinances addressing the legal fiction of corporate personhood and other threats corporations pose to our democracy in ___________.

Be It Further Resolved that the ___________ City Council calls on others communities and jurisdictions in Arizona and in other states to join the movement to amend the US Constitution in actions that defend our right to self-governance by passing similar resolutions.

Be It Finally Resolved that the __________ City Council directs that this Resolution be posted on its web site, be sent to the President of the U.S., Arizona’s U.S. Senators and Representatives, to the Arizona Governor and State Legislators, other pertinent elected local, state and national officials including the Chairs of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees; and to all ____________ newspaper, television and radio media outlets.

[AZKing]

Interesting. I'm certainly against the premise that a corporation is a person.

[Dorfsmith]

I'm up in Flagstaff.

[sailingaway]

I kind of agree with 2 but not 1. They are saying you can't do what you want with your own money.

[dannno]

^^

[FrankRep]

I'm against Corporate Personhood, but I'm also against Democracy!



http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/00columnists/walter_williams.jpg
Walter Williams



Like the founders of our nation, I find democracy and majority rule a contemptible form of government.


Democracy Versus Liberty (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5409-democracy-versus-liberty)


Walter Williams | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
23 February 2011

____


The American Form of Government: Constitutional Republic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE



Ron Paul: Democracy Is Not Freedom
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

Ron Paul: A Republic, Not a Democracy
http://www.free-press.biz/usa/A-republic.htm

Dr. Ron Paul: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/republic.html

The New American: A Republic, if You Can Keep It
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

[NewRightLibertarian]

I believe that the way people use their fiat notes does constitute speech so I personally wouldn't support this. I feel as if this ruling is being blown out of proportion by the progressive left. Like the corporations didn't control the government before this was passed, gimme a break.

[FrankRep]

Also, those Progressive Democrats can blame the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court for Corporate Personhood.


Wikipedia: Corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)



In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-0)][2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-1)] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549551?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1579549551)," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-2)] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

[akforme]

Liberals ignore the true cause because the cause is the bedrock of their belief. Why do corporations spend on government? Because they have the power to help and it pays better than other forms of investing. As long as the government can intervene it will be used by those who lobby over those who vote.

However, I'm against corporate personhood because it gives a collective, the corporation, power the individual doesn't have like limited liability and tax breaks. But again corporations are not the problem and basically what the liberals want is to take our money, tell us what to do, and tell us to shut the fuck up about it. Smells like tyranny to me.

[Dorfsmith]

Also, those Progressive Democrats can blame the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court for Corporate Personhood.


Wikipedia: Corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)



In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-0)][2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-1)] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549551?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1579549551)," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-2)] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

Surprisingly, in the letter they sent me they did blame the 14th amendment. They also blamed the Supreme Court but that was not as surprising.

[akforme]

Also, those Progressive Democrats can blame the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court for Corporate Personhood.


Wikipedia: Corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)



In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-0)][2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-1)] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549551?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1579549551)," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-2)] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

And actually, you need to blame the civil war because that's what gave the federal government the power to implement this over the states. For what I understand the 14th is a government granted right, not a protected natural right.

[FrankRep]

And actually, you need to blame the civil war because that's what gave the federal government the power to implement this over the states. For what I understand the 14th is a government granted right, not a protected natural right.

You can't undo the Civil War, but you can fix the 14th Amendment and limit the Supreme Court's power.

[erowe1]

What's wrong with corporate personhood?

[economics102]

Money is speech. Even if you were to entertain the premise of attempting to draw a distinction between the two, when you start working out the details of it you quickly realize why money and speech cannot be separated. It's actually an interesting intellectual exercise. Try to come up with laws that constrain the flow of money in elections. Watch all the crazy unintended consequences to crop up as you try to add constraints.

The solution to the money-corrupting-politics problem is that the government should be doing so little that corruption is not a big concern and isn't very lucrative to pursue. You will NEVER manage to take a government that spends trillions of dollars left and right and prevent corruption. Ask yourself, how far would you (or some more devious person you know) be willing to go to grab a slice of a trillion dollars?

[erowe1]

1. Money is not speech.


I just think that's a ridiculous line. So what if money isn't speech? My money is my property. I have a right to do with it what I want. If I want to use it to fund the propagation of some message, then that's my right. If the government intervenes and says that I can't spend $x on propagating a political message, even though I could spend $x advertising a product I want to sell, then it sure seems to me that that law would be violating my freedom of speech.

[FrankRep]

What's wrong with corporate personhood?

It's a Government creation, an artificial person.

[erowe1]

It's a Government creation, an artificial person.

No it's not.

[akforme]

What's wrong with corporate personhood?

it gives a government created collective, the corporation, power the individual doesn't have.

Go to http://freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx, (it's java from here on so I can't give links) but click on economy, then corporations. Stefan Molyneux does a great job breaking down corporations in a free market.

[FrankRep]

No it's not.

A Corporation is not a natural person (it's an artificial person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality)). A "Corporation" is a government creation.

[erowe1]

it gives a government created collective, the corporation, power the individual doesn't have.


There may be laws that grant corporations rights that individuals don't have. And I'd be all for repealing all such laws. But if you eliminated all those laws, and even if you eliminated the state itself, there would still be corporations. And those corporations by definition would have corporate personhood. The only way to get rid of that would be by positively prohibiting people from entering contracts with one another establishing corporations, which would be entirely unethical.

[erowe1]

A Corporation is not a natural person (it's an artificial person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality)). A "Corporation" is a government creation.

You already said that. And it's just as untrue the second time around.

[ChaosControl]

I'd support it.

I absolutely oppose corporate personhood (and limited liability).
I don't think money is speech.

Oh and I also agree that Democracy is bad.
Majority rule just means tyranny of the majority, that will lead to corruption just as corporate rule has.

[akforme]

There may be laws that grant corporations rights that individuals don't have. And I'd be all for repealing all such laws. But if you eliminated all those laws, and even if you eliminated the state itself, there would still be corporations. And those corporations by definition would have corporate personhood. The only way to get rid of that would be by positively prohibiting people from entering contracts with one another establishing corporations, which would be entirely unethical.

It would be a partnership based on the two people that would gain no extra legal advantage over any single individual. I do agree the terminology can be misleading, and I sometimes wonder if liberals think corporations are made up of robots, because ultimately it's a group of individuals who should have the same right to do with their money as the collective as they would as individuals.

[Grubb556]

Does it make a difference ? The corporation turned partnership would just be like "By contrecting with us, any of our obligations will be paid only with the invested capital", and "By contracting with us, you agree that for litigation purposes that our partnership is to considered a person"

[erowe1]

It would be a partnership based on the two people that would gain no extra legal advantage over any single individual. I do agree the terminology can be misleading, and I sometimes wonder if liberals think corporations are made up of robots, because ultimately it's a group of individuals who should have the same right to do with their money as the collective as the would as individuals.

Right. And it doesn't have to be two people, it could be any number of people who enter a contract with one another where they pool certain money and delegate to a board of individuals they elect the responsibility of managing that money as an entity separate from each individual contributor with the ability to enter contracts as that separate entity. As long as we have that, we have corporate personhood, with or without any government involvement.

[akforme]

Does it make a difference ? The corporation turned partnership would just be like "By contrecting with us, any of our obligations will be paid only with the invested capital", and "By contracting with us, you agree that for litigation purposes that our partnership is to considered a person"

That would be done by personal choice, not by force of government. I could choose to enter in that agreement with you or I could use a competitor that doesn't.

[FrankRep]

1. Money is not speech.


Here's the deal I think. These progressive Democrats want to fight the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling that overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance prohibitions.



Ron Paul supports overturning McCain-Feingold. Read here. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?227633-Ron-Paul-on-the-McCain-Feingold-%28-Campaign-Reform-Act-%29)


Conclusion: The OP's proposed legislation is Bad.



The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7693-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec)

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

McCain-Feingold and Free Speech | Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7706-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech)

President Obama and major media outlets, ignoring the First Amendment and its protection of free speech, have chastised the Supreme Court for overturning McCain-Feingold prohibitions on corporations airing political ads. By Jack Kenny

[Dorfsmith]

Here's the deal I think. These progressive Democrats want to fight the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling that overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance prohibitions.



Ron Paul supports overturning McCain-Feingold. Read here. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?227633-Ron-Paul-on-the-McCain-Feingold-%28-Campaign-Reform-Act-%29)


Conclusion: The OP's proposed legislation is a Bad.



The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec)

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

McCain-Feingold and Free Speech | Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech)

President Obama and major media outlets, ignoring the First Amendment and its protection of free speech, have chastised the Supreme Court for overturning McCain-Feingold prohibitions on corporations airing political ads. By Jack Kenny

Very helpful post!

Thanks to everyone for your comments in this thread.

[mczerone]

Tell your progressive acquaintances that if they don't like how a company is spending its money, don't use that company. Or start a new one to compete against it - they already know where they can save revenue by using the same business plan without the political expenditures.

Rights are neither created nor destroyed by altering the number agreeing to act in concert. An association of men does not gain the right to tax others just because they may gain the power to do so, just as a voluntary association of men does not lose the right to devote their resources to ends they choose.

Progressives are just jealous that they can't participate in the anarchy that exists among those who are buying the state. To be able to make one's own law is all we all are after - as evidenced by this attempt to actually pass a law! How about you agree to help them pass the law as long as they agree not to force you to follow it. :)

[FrankRep]

Very helpful post!

Here's a compromise for the Progressive Democrats:

The Republicans want to fix the "Anchor Baby" Loophole in the 14th Amendment and the Democrats want to remove "Corporate Personhood."


They can work together to get both problems fixed!


Senators Vitter and Rand Paul Seek Closing of Anchor Baby "Loophole" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7881-senators-vitter-and-paul-seek-closing-of-anchor-baby-loophole)

Senators David Vitter and Rand Paul plan to introduce a bill that would clarify the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship to babies born in America to illegal immigrant parents.


Related Articles:


Automatic Citizenship (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/2040-automatic-citizenship)

Constitutionality of Anchor Babies Questioned (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/2037-constitutionality-of-anchor-babies-questioned)

Senators Call for Hearings on 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/4208-senators-call-for-hearings-on-14th-amendment-citizenship-clause)

State Legislators for Legal Immigration Ask Congress to Reconsider Intent of 14th Amendment (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7772-senators-call-for-hearings-on-14th-amendment-citizenship-clause)

Anchor Babies and the Illegal 14th Amendment (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5186-anchor-babies-and-the-illegal-14th)

[Dorfsmith]

Here's a compromise for the Progressive Democrats:

The Republicans want to fix the "Anchor Baby" Loophole in the 14th Amendment and the Democrats want to remove "Corporate Personhood."


They can work together to get both problems fixed!


Senators Vitter and Rand Paul Seek Closing of Anchor Baby "Loophole" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/6097-senators-vitter-and-paul-to-introduce-bill-eliminating-anchor-baby-qloopholeq)

Senators David Vitter and Rand Paul plan to introduce a bill that would clarify the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship to babies born in America to illegal immigrant parents.


Related Articles:


Automatic Citizenship (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/4453-automatic-citizenship)

Constitutionality of Anchor Babies Questioned (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/4312-anchor-babies)

Senators Call for Hearings on 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/4208-senators-call-for-hearings-on-14th-amendment-citizenship-clause)

State Legislators for Legal Immigration Ask Congress to Reconsider Intent of 14th Amendment (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/5793-state-legislators-for-legal-immigration-ask-congress-to-reconsider-intent-of-14th-amendment)

Anchor Babies and the Illegal 14th Amendment (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/chip-wood/3641-anchor-babies-and-the-illegal-14th)

LOL! I love it.

[Jack Bauer]

If corporations have "personhood", why are they taxed on their profits and not their revenue like everyone of us?

[DjLoTi]

corporation ≠ person

[Mark37snj]

They are Progressives. Whatever they want is not in the peoples best interest but their own personal agenda. Logic, reason, facts, and our Constitution means nothing to them if it stands in the way of their agenda. They crafted an argument in a way to make it appear they are doing the right thing "For the People" but I assure you their lawyers have worked out their angle in these new amendments to serve their agenda. Amendments 1 and 2 blatentenly state they want to restrict who can give money and who has rights. This is an attempt to undermine the recent court decision that leveled the playing feild on campaign donations. I would vote against the whole thing. They are specifically going after corporations but have obviously left out Unions. Why is that? A Union is the same as a corporation when it comes to donating to a campaign so why are they left out. The answer is easy, Unions support Progressives. Unions bribe progressives to give them high salaries and benefits and in return support and vote for progressives in elections. Another reason to end state and federal collective bargaining "Rights". The recent court decision enabled non Union organization, corporations, to have the same "Rights" as Unions to donate to political campaigns. The progressives had the game rigged in their favor but lost it with the court decision. Now they are trying to get it back. Don't support it. The only FAIR course would be to outlaw Corporation AND Union campaign donations, but I see no mention of Unions in their Fair and Balanced Amendments.

[Dorfsmith]

Great points. A few minutes ago I told them that I have major concerns about the whole thing and will not be able to support it. It didn't feel right from the beginning but I always appreciate the insight from those who post on these forums and wanted to run it by everyone. Thanks again.