Skip to main content

View Diary: LIVE BLOG: Congressional Progressive Caucus (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Corporate personhood (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga

    You mentioned corporate rights.  That is a different thing.  "Corporate personhood" is the basis from which 'corporate rights" emanate.    It goes way beyong the protection of individual assets.  As I wrote, we need corporations to have personhood, to be legal entities, that can enter into contracts and be held liable for negligence, and be sued for criminal activities, etc, etc.  

    So long as corporations exist, they should and will have 'personhood." The question is how much of their rights under the 14th Amendment should be curtailed b/c of their not being a " natural person. "  Specifically, how should we limit  corporations right to free speech.

    Let me be clear: the question is not whether corporations have or should have the right to free speech  Again, so long as they are legal entities, they should for to deny a legal entity the right to defend itself is an anathma to our entire legal system. The question is how to balance a (very wealthy and theoretically immortal) legal entity's right to free speech with, as you say, its corrupting influence on our political system.

    •  Immortal and ... (0+ / 0-)

      amoral (I was going to write IMmoral, but thought better of it.).

      "Without viable unions to serve as a counterweight to corporate power, America's working people and their families are at the mercy of the largest and most powerful economic organizations on the planet."

      by billlaurelMD on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's funny (0+ / 0-)

        I am telling you the actual law of the matter.  Seeing as how this is a legal issue as well as a political one, I would think more people would be interested in how judges and legal experts understand and anylize this issue.  That is, what the Constiution means to the people who spend their lives interpreteing and adudicating it.  

        Judging from the responses here, it seems that I am wrong.

        People are not interested in the Constitution.  They are interested in what they want and they take that to mean what is Constitutional. Some may say "Meh, I don't care about the Constitution and Con Law, I just want corporations to not pollute our elections."  Fair enough.  No one is under any burden to tailor their arugments to meet the stictures of Con Law.  The Republicans don't worry about it.

        But then, if you do that, you are a hypocrite if you decry something you do not like as 'unConstitutional."

        •  the only point I was trying to make (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plubius

          is that corporations are not compelled to be moral beings.  The problem is that they are on this green (or not so green) earth to maximize profit to the corporate owners, I suppose within the scope of the law and the Constitution. I guess you didn't take too kindly to my pun.

          Your point about what people want to be constitutional is well taken though, and I suppose that both sides do it.

          "Without viable unions to serve as a counterweight to corporate power, America's working people and their families are at the mercy of the largest and most powerful economic organizations on the planet."

          by billlaurelMD on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 11:00:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's why I said (0+ / 0-)

      a person under the Constitution -- and differentiated between natural and non-natural (or legal) persons.

      Unfortunately we find ourselves in the situation where legal persons end up having more legal protections than natural persons.

      A corporation's assets aren't stripped because of the wrongdoing of its officers, and vice-versa; whereas an individual may be stripped of assets merely on the accusation of drug trafficking.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site