Monday, July 07, 2008

Proposed Constitutional amendment

A person is defined solely as a human being. The definition of person does not include any corporate or other fictitious entity.


h/t

4 comments:

Steve Bates said...

Don't hold your breath. Although that is at least something a corporation can't do...

Michael said...

You are a wordsmith, this would make a fine amendment.

hipparchia said...

not me, michael. i borrowed it from someone else. but i agree, this would make a fine amendment.


steve, if only....

Joe said...

How about certain animals like higher apes? For instance, you might not set up certain kinds of useful trusts for an animal since it is deemed property.

Non-profits can be corporations, ditto media companies. It is not really necessarily a bad thing. The state can regulate corporations in any number of ways, even though they are 'persons.'

Corporations became "persons" in large part because of lawsuits. Suing individual parties when dealing with corporations, especially those with a national reach, was a confusing enterprise.

So we have "NYT v. Sullivan" etc. I don't think this is a problem, especially since, again, it doesn't stop you from regulating such corporations. I also don't think it by itself degrades the rights of flesh and blood persons.

And, not calling them "persons" also won't help much. For instance, the people behind the corporations can declare they have free speech rights to give large sums of money.