Corporate "Personhood" DESTROYED In One Simple Sentence

[liberalnarb]

[hifiguy]

1. That's about as fine and understandable a distillation

as can be imagined. Exactly what I'd expect from Bernie!

[teamster633]

2. Or alternately (from one of my favorite bumper stickers)

I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

[liberalnarb]

3. That ones good too.

[floriduck]

45. Hill is a person, Bill is a person

Hill and Bill Clinton together is a disaster waiting to happen.

[hifiguy]

47. We've already had an eight-year preview.

Don't want to see that movie again.

[roguevalley]

57. that is hilarious, floriduck. :D:D:D and true.

[Hortensis]

65. Must you turn every statement of principle

Bernie makes into a slur against his opponent? Do you even hear him?

[roguevalley]

78. I have no idea what you're talking about. I am talking to Floriduck. But thanks for the concern.

whatever the hell you're talking about.

[tecelote]

4. Ben & Jerry agree.

[RandiFan1290]

5. So refreshing to have someone to vote FOR! nt

[hifiguy]

6. Gads, it feels so GOOD!

[farleftlib]

25. You said it!

Not holding my nose is going to feel really good.

[Ferd Berfel]

7. I wonder if Hillary even Realizes this?

Doubt it.

[Enthusiast]

8. Can't all Democrats at least agree on this one principle?

[cascadiance]

41. I was discovering earlier this week that it would appear we can't...

Read the responses to my post noting that I thought Bernie would be more adamant of having a corporate personhood litmus test for who he would nominate to the supreme court. It's interesting to read some of the logic here trying to rationalize why corporate personhood inherent rights are needed for other "good things" in society, without really explain why this sort of thing can't be legislated, other than Republicans in congress would block us from doing that now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=974711

Kind of surprised me too, as I thought this would be one issue we could all agree on with the horrible consequences of court decisions like Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby which basically rely on the corporate personhood BS "precedent" to justify their rulings.

[Enthusiast]

58. You were swarmed. I guess it shouldn't surprise us. Things are rapidly changing for the worse.

[Hortensis]

66. Most Democrats do, be assured. It's easy to

forget that many on DU are not only not Democrats but are not even liberals.

[CharlotteVale]

9. K&R

[lame54]

10. agreed - it's Ben and Mary not Ben and Jerry...

Wait
I think I got off topic here

[lovemydog]

12. Ben and Mary and Ben and Jerry -

obscure classic art film.

[lame54]

31. like the gay porn hit...

Glenn, Gary, Glenn and Ross

[merrily]

59. LOL!

[lovemydog]

11. True.

And they make great ice cream.

I love their special editions. Anyone remember the Colbert special limited edition. It had some waffle cone, vanilla bean, chocolate chip as I recall. I've also had some kind of pumpkin cheesecake ice cream.

Yummmmmm.

[Mr.Bill]

13. I'll believe corporations are people

when Texas executes one.

And don't bring up Enron. That was a suicide.

[millard filmore]

52. corporate people

Is dissolving a corporation murder?
If an incorporation application is withdrawn before being granted, is that an abortion?

[Nye Bevan]

14. Is he implying that Ben and Jerry's does not have constitutional rights?

For example, that there would be no constitutional obstacle to their corporate-owned premises being searched by the police for no reason, or to their corporate-owned property being confiscated without any compensation being paid?

[liberalnarb]

17. Ben And Jerry have constitutional rights. The idea that their corporation itself is a "person"

is foul

[Nye Bevan]

18. "Corporate personhood" is the notion that a corporation has some, but not all, of the legal rights

enjoyed by natural persons.

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

So which legal rights and responsibilities, exactly, is it "foul" to claim that Ben and Jerry's, as a corporate entity, has?

[liberalnarb]

20. The legal right to buy politicians and use them as mouthpiece while undermining our democracy

IS FOUL!

[hifiguy]

21. This.

A corporation is in no way the moral equivalent of a natural person for constitutional purposes and should not be under the law. A corporation is a legal fiction with no rights other than those granted to it by statute.

[jberryhill]

28. So you are okay with warrantless searches of corporate offices, correct?

The FBI can walk into Greenpeace and rummage through their files any time, since Greenpeace has no Constitutional protection from warrantless searches.

[hifiguy]

30. Statutes could cover this without giving the farm away to Organized Money.

Though warrantless searches of Goldman and the rest of the banksters would be just fine with me.

[Nye Bevan]

33. So, a Republican congress could pass a law allowing warrantless searches of Planned Parenthood

offices, for no good reason or probable cause, and you don't think such a law would be unconstitutional due to the fact that Planned Parenthood is not a "natural person" and therefore has no constitutional rights.

Sometimes it's obvious that people haven't fully thought through the implications of what they are proposing.

[jmowreader]

56. You catch on quick, Nye

Eliminating corporate personhood would ALSO eliminate a corporation's ability to be sued. You'd have to sue all the stockholders, and you'd lose because stockholders don't get to decide who to buy ignition switches from.

[hardluck]

72. Not to mention good luck getting personal jurisdiction over all shareholders

This would certainly make defense counsel's job easier.

[jmowreader]

54. They can also walk into Monsanto or Citibank and do the same thing

Strange thing is, the people who'd be aghast at the government rifling Greenpeace's files would be all "yeah! Screw them muthas to the wall!" over it happening to ConAgra.

[jberryhill]

55. Yep

[Volaris]

29. And new statutes can always be written,

And if need be, Amendments can be enacted that make those Statutes immune from CONSERVATIVE Judicial activism.
All it takes is a willing electorate to empower a CONGRESS that isn't composed of Bought little Bitches.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Corporate campaign contributions to candidates for federal office are illegal

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
Corporations;
Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

and this law was unaffected by the Citizens United decision.

So what, precisely, are you proposing?

[demwing]

24. Keep it up

And proudly wear that big old H

[Nye Bevan]

37. I find myself very much in agreement with the ACLU on this issue.

I'm assuming that you don't.

[demwing]

38. Don't worry about me, just tell us more about corporations

[Nye Bevan]

42. OK.

I think the corporate tax system should be changed to a territorial system like the rest of the world's. This would solve the problems of "inversions" and corporations hoarding money overseas at a stroke and ensure that US-based multinationals are competitive with foreign ones.

More info here: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/sr191.pdf

[cascadiance]

43. The problem also is that they are selective about what "rights" and "responsibilities" they claim...

... to be equivalent to those of human beings.

If they did have ALL of the rights and responsibilities of human beings, then they should have a life expectancy like humans do (and therefore should die naturally like they do within at least an average lifetime for human beings, which early on some politicians had actually recommended be put in place). And many corporations who buy other corporations would also be convicted of the crime of slavery, as human beings can't buy and own other human beings. And how could they justify mergers if certain states where they are based didn't have gay marriage legal earlier. They had the jump on human beings before that recent court decision. Perhaps that was one motivation for the Roberts court to side with the gay populace on that one decision over righties that they made.

And when it comes to taxation, corporations are taxed so much differently and LESS than humans are. Why aren't they being charged and tried for tax evasion the way humans would be if humans were to shelter their income from taxes the way corporations typically do today.

[Nye Bevan]

44. So fire everyone after 80 years and shut the place down.

Okayyyyy....

[cascadiance]

46. If we could keep them to being artificial persons with restricted and legislated rights...

... and responsibilities, instead of inherent rights and responsibilities that we as human beings have, then I think that the idea of having no deaths for corporations (unless they are found guilty of something that should have that corporation shut down) might be ok with me.

The key is that as an artificial person with limited rights and not natural person ascribed rights, we can control a lot more what a corporation is able or not able to do, even if it has an unlimited life span.

[annabanana]

48. Can we bury them and distribute their assets when they reach, oh, say, 110?. . n/t

[1939]

71. and lay off al their workers NT

[treestar]

63. right, and if Bernie doesn't get that, he is not

ready for prime time. Or maybe he is just grandstanding.

[sulphurdunn]

23. Ben has constitutional rights.

Jerry has constitutional rights. Ben and Jerry's has no constitutional rights that I can find stated or implied anywhere in the Constitution.

[jberryhill]

27. So every First Amendment case brought by the New York Times was wrong

Nixon did have the right to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers after all.

Waddya know.

[Nye Bevan]

35. Does Planned Parenthood have constitutional rights?

After all, they are not a "natural person". Can the local police search their offices for no reason, whenever they feel like it, and confiscate their stuff, just because, without any constitutional problems?

[sulphurdunn]

49. No "entity" corporate or otherwise has constitutional rights.

[Nye Bevan]

50. So Congress can pass a law banning publishers from publishing certain books?

After all, the publishers are corporations so they have no constitutional rights that such a law would violate.

[sulphurdunn]

69. It most certainly can and has.

Congress banned horror comics in the 1950s and has banned child pornography in print and on the internet.

[Nye Bevan]

70. No, Congress never passed a law to ban horror comics.

There were some Congressional hearings but no law was ever passed. The industry did voluntarily decide to set up a code to follow:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

And child pornography is, as you probably know, one of the very few well-known exceptions to the First Amendment.

[sulphurdunn]

73. You asked for examples.

The comic book industry "voluntarily" set a code to avoid having congress legislate one. The child porn ban is a clear example of what congress has the constitutional authority to do. As much as some folks suggest that "corporation are people my friend" they are not. What might concern you is that even though there is no constitutional basic for corporate civil rights, corporation are actually granted rights superior to those of individuals by American courts. If corporations deserved the same rights as people our prisons would be full of them.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, liberalnarb.

[Odin2005]

16. FEEL THE BERN!

[Initech]

19. Can I declare myself a corporation?

I've got some small assets and a little money, do I qualify?

[Nye Bevan]

34. You can indeed, for only $49!

https://www.maxfilings.com/

[Shandris]

22. Nice one, but doesn't really drive any distinction.

How about "Corporate Personhood. When's the last time you saw a corporation on trial for the death penalty?"

If they're people, then they should comply with people's laws or there is no Rule of Law. Granted, our Priesthood (collective, not Democratic) already took care of the whole Rule of Law thing for us, but still.

[Nye Bevan]

36. The accounting firm Arthur Andersen is dead,

killed after being found guilty of criminal charges related to the Enron case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

[Shandris]

39. Well, more or less yes. But I was meaning 'Criminal Charges' as a corporation.

IE, if a corporation is to be a person, then it must be made to vanish like a person (When a person goes to jail, for instance). It's assets, stocks, and so on should be parted and sold to interested buyers (with attendant job protection measures for those innocent of wrongdoing). Under no circumstances should a corporation found guilty of even one act of intentional manslaughter or greater EVER be allowed to continue doing business. It must be given the death penalty (ie, parted and sold). AA had its license revoked and reputation destroyed most of its other business, but it technically still exists.

But that's in a perfect world, and we're lucky to make 'survivable' at this point, so I doubt I can dither too much about fine hairs.

[Nye Bevan]

40. The accounting firm no longer exists, thanks to the criminal prosecution (nt)

[treestar]

64. corporations can be charged with crimes

there are already laws providing for all of that.

[smirkymonkey]

26. This is why I love Bernie!

He is the only one who gets it.

[yodermon]

51. At what point would it become OK to curtail DU's 1st amendment rights? n/t

[merrily]

60. Why? What has DU, LLC said lately?

[Nye Bevan]

61. "No corporate-owned website is permitted to publish election-related content

during the 3 months prior to the election". Presunably you think this law would be constitutional as it only addresses corporations? All of the content on DU is published on the web by DU, LLC. I personally don't have any First Amendment right to insist that DU accepts my posts, but DU LLC has the First Amendment right to publish my posts on its website.

[merrily]

67. Where is the language you quoted from, or did you make it up. I don't say the latter disparagingly.

I just would like to know. However, please don't put words in my mouth or assume what I would think. Thanks.

[Wolf Frankula]

53. Corporations are Not Persons

"They have neither bodies to be kicked, nor souls to be damned." William Gouge.

Wolf

[treestar]

62. not qualified to be POTUS if he doesn't get the basic legal concept

personhood here means legal entity - like an estate, guardianship - personhood here means legal entity, can sue and be sued. Make contracts, hold bank accounts.

[Progressive dog]

68. And the laws agree with Bernie

From wikipedia

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

Bernie knocked down a straw man.

[vkkv]

74. I'm VOTING for BERNIE ______B-b-b-but, David Koch is a person, Charles Koch is a person, are not the

"Koch brothers' people ?

You know that right-wing the slime dogs are going to come up with SOMETHING similar!


I like Bernie's statement a lot, but right-wingers aren't going to accept it.. hopefully conservative-leaning moderates will, I suppose.


&

[liberalnarb]

75. Countering that I would say that

Yes the Koch brothers are people, but the mega corporation KOCH is not a person nor people.

[Nye Bevan]

76. Good point. Charles Koch will always be able to spend whatever he wants to influence elections,

as he is a "natural person" and has full constitutional rights.

But if I band together with a bunch of like-minded people to pool our resources to attempt to counteract his message, all of a sudden we are an "artificial entity" (in the eyes of many DUers) and have no constitutional right to get our voice heard.

[libodem]

77. I love this man

Corporations are no more people than this android phone, which does everything, but butter my toast. If I wanted to wipe the butter off it it could do that, too.

When corporations go to jail for murder they'll be people in my book. They are a firewall to protect criminal wrongdoing. POS...don't get me started....