Over the past few years, certain political figues on the right have talked about "personhood" from Romney's comment that "corporations are people" to the various "personhood amendments" that have been floating in various States as well as now in the Republican platform. Now, I am willing to consider the possibility that Romney was referring to the people within the corporation: After all, a business doesn't run itself. It requires people to do the work. But that is beside the point when we have decisions such as Citizens United that point out that corporations have speech rights.
The point, the right seems to be working toward an expanded definition of what a "person" is (hmmm...redefining "marriage" is an assualt to our very concept of civilization but redefining "person"?) But by doing so, they raise some very odd consequences should this pass.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution reads, in part:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
This section was then modified by the 14th Amendment, Section 2:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
I hope you can see where this is going.
First, it appears that according to the Constitution, women and children (including males under the age of 21) are not included in the calculations to determine representation in Congress.
But, wait! Doesn't the 19th Amendment give women the right to vote? Yes, it does, but it makes no mention of the census:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all the 19th Amendment says. It does not then say that the enumeration for representation shall include women.
The other way to read it is that no, you count everybody but any men who are excluded from voting due to criminal activity are to be removed from the total. Thus, female and child criminals will not reduce the representation count. That doesn't seem quite right because as we can tell from examining the text of the Constitution, the assumption is that only men vote. Therefore, the only reason to reduce the count would be if there are men who are not "part of the system," as it were, due to their inability to vote.
In 1850, women and children (and slaves) were included in the census for the first time and it would appear that apportionment is based upon total population including women and children, so by my reckoning, "persons" includes people who aren't males over the age of 21.
So what happens when the fetus is declared a "person"? Does that mean the census must include them? Apportionment must now take into account how many pregnant women there are? If corporations are people, does that mean your representatives are including the number of businesses? Is there a difference among sole proprietor, LLC, and incorporated businesses? Does the business district of a city gain more "people" for the census count? Do all those "personal incorporations" in Nevada and that so many businesses incorporate in Delaware mean those states will increase in representation?
I will handily admit to being oblivious, but I don't recall any of the people talking about "personhood" bothering to stop and examine just what it means to have their favorite entity declared a "person." There are people who try to slice and dice the language of the Constitution to make it fit whatever personal agenda they have to say and the specific example coming to mind concerns the treatment of the POWs we captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That is, they try to claim that they have no right under the US Constitution to a trial because they're not citizens. "The Constitution only applies to citizens! If it applied to anybody, then somebody in France could sue somebody in Germany over a violation of the US Constitution."
But if you look at the various clauses in the Constitution, it doesn't say, "citizens." It says, "persons." From the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From the 14th Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[Of course, that's only for States, but that does have something to say regarding the way States are handling immigration.]
The Sixth Amendment doesn't refer to "citizens," either, but rather simply to "the accused":
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The point being that "personhood" has its privileges. In all their zeal to give "personhood" to these entities, it seems they haven't fully considered the consequences of their actions. By trying to give the status of a "person" to a fetus or a corporation, there are far-reaching effects that change the way our government works and it will not do to have us pass the amendment now and try to work the details out later.