2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Who would pick the BEST Supreme Court Justices? Bernie Or Hill ? [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That is the way the wrote legal language in the constitution. Making fundamental differences there, so that we could legislate as the people the rights these entities have and not just "give" our own rights to them because we have them. If they had the rights and laws of natural persons applied to them, then many of them should be put in prison (or punished equivalently) for engaging in slavery when they buy other "persons" in companies. We're not allowed to buy other natural persons as slaves. Why should corporations get those rights that we are specifically prohibited from having if they are going to get all of the others that their lawyers CHOOSE them to have based on the 14th amendment BULLSHIT so that they can maximize power over the rest of us and reward those who own these companies and who are in charge more fascist rights than they should have.
There are rights to a free press that is stated in the original constitution. And I don't see the NY Times NEEDING "corporate personhood" rights to publish stories. There are other laws that should be pursued, or legislated if needed, to specifically give these artificial persons rights that are needed if needed in these cases. We shouldn't be throwing away everything else just for the excuse to do these cases. If there is no distinction between artificial and natural persons in terms of rights, then why even have those terms.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):