Skip to main content

View Diary: Ending corporate personhood via a Constitutional Amendment: we are on our way. (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a start. (3+ / 0-)

    If the amendment needs expansion or clarification, let's do it, but stop bickering.
    This effort, regardless of the exact verbiage, is precisely the one thing I think all of OWS can get behind, providing focus for the movement, and concrete results for the American people.

    "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire

    by Andhakari on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:32:38 AM PST

    •  The problem is it's fatally flawed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Robobagpiper

      If you take away a corporation's personhood, it can't enter into contracts, hire employees, sue, or be sued.  That's in addition to all of the other concerns about exposing them to a lack of protection against government abuses.  

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:36:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it doing that? (0+ / 0-)

        (taking away a corporation's personhood) or is it re-establishing the distinction between the rights of  natural persons vs. the rules and protections afforded to "fictitious persons," such as corps?

      •  This is a misreading of the proposed amendment (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlanF, PeterSchurman, Andhakari, CTPatriot

        We are only dealing here with corporate constitutional rights.  For good reason, including contract law, we are not making any change to the ability of we the people, through our democratic institutions, to treat corporations as people under statutes.  For example, the Clean Air Act treats corporations as persons for purposes of holding corporations accountable if they violate the Act.  Nothing in this amendment would change that.  This is is solely about whether corporations should be elevated to having the rights of people under the US Constitution.

        For further answers to the kinds of questions, see our FAQ:

        •  Contracts exist because they can (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          be enforced by law.

          If a contract cannot be enforced against or by a corporation, that pretty much ends the practice of corporations entering into contracts.

          And, the constitution limits courts' jurisdiction to cases where it has personal jurisdiction over both parties, as well as subject matter jurisdiction.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:49:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm... and what's to guarantee that a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          future SCOTUS won't similarly "misread" said amendment?

          This is what you set up when you dig in and refuse to address the obvious failings of the problem of the proposed amendment's language (and very premise).

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:50:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks and I agree. (4+ / 0-)

      Let's move the debate forward.  This amendment bill marks the first time Congress is presented with this question.  There will -- and should -- be plenty of opportunity to seek changes to the wording, additions to the language, etc.  The important thing we must first do is to show that the public wants this debate and to engage in it. Is it We the People or We the Corporations?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site