Is a corporation a person? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14947771
The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[13] which states:


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.
#14947784
No. The very idea was made simply to protect US corporations and their CEOs from lawsuits.
#14947788
Yes.

I find it somewhat saddening that most people's understanding of the law is so superficial, and usually derivative of Marxist propaganda. For example:

Godstud wrote:No. The very idea was made simply to protect US corporations and their CEOs from lawsuits.

This is the sort of mindless drivel that one can expect from the hoi polloi. Godstud posits that the notion of a corporation as a person is equivalent to the notion that the liabilities of a corporation do not extend to its shareholders, and somehow originates in the United States. Anybody with any sense whatsoever knows that this is intrinsically false.

Limited liability dates to the 15th Century, which is antecedent to the founding of the United States, [Bulaba edit: warning for Rule 2 issued]. England's East India Company was such an example. However, corporations were chartered by the King or an Act of Parliament. They were not granted willy nilly to anyone who wanted to form a corporation.

That is where America differed from Europe. America pioneered limited liability joint stock companies around 1811 in New York. The US was still an economic backwater back then. The UK's Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844 had a much bigger economic impact.

Additionally, Godstud's mind boggling ignorance--which is no doubt the fault of Canada's failing education system--assumes that limited liability protects corporations from lawsuits. It does no such thing. It protects shareholders from lawsuits for the actions of the company. The intent was to prevent those investing in a corporation from becoming bound by the corporation's debts should it fall on economic hard times. This limitation of liability made it possible for people to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars, collectively into millions of dollars. It made it possible to finance heavy industry and railroads, and virtually transformed countries from primarily agrarian systems with small market cities to primarily industrial and market cities with tiny percentages of the population involved in food production. It was partly responsible for the greatest improvement in living standards in the entire history of human civilization, which is overlooked by the Canadian education system for some reason.
#14947789
@blackjack21 [Bulaba edit: warning for Rule 2 issued]. You're fucking wrong, and you simply can't admit it. That you seem to feel the need to insult me only shows that you have no real argument.
#14947796
Godstud wrote:@blackjack21 Prove me wrong, smartass. You're fucking wrong, and you simply can't admit it.

I'm totally right. The US Supreme Court agrees with me, and so does any lawyer worth more than his weight in salt. Even the Government of Canada agrees with me, which gives me a warm creamy feeling in my tummy.

The notion of a person at law involves agency and the capacity to contract. If a corporation wasn't a person, you could simply go to the store and take the groceries, because the store could not be said to own them. If you buy something from a store, you write checks to the store or have your cards charged by the store--by its corporate identity, unless it's a sole prop.

Canada has joint stock companies too, with limited liability. Did you know that?

Is incorporation right for you?
The Government of Canada wrote:Benefits of incorporating
No matter where you choose to incorporate, incorporation offers many benefits to your company, including:

creation of a separate legal entity
limited liability
lower corporate tax rates
better access to capital and grants
continuous existence.

Separate legal entity
The act of incorporating creates a new legal entity called a corporation, commonly referred to as a “company”. Your corporation will have the same rights and obligations under Canadian law as a natural person. Among other things, this means that it can acquire assets, obtain a loan, enter into contracts, sue or be sued, and even be found guilty of committing a crime. Your corporation's money and other assets belong to the corporation and not to its shareholders.

Limited liability
Incorporation limits the liability of a corporation's shareholders. This means that, as a general rule, the shareholders of a corporation are not responsible for its debts. If your corporation goes bankrupt, your shareholders will not lose more than their investment (except shareholders who have provided personal guarantees for the corporation's debts). Creditors also cannot sue your shareholders for the corporation’s liabilities (debts), even though the shareholders are the owners of your corporation.

However, if a shareholder has another relationship with the corporation (for ex., as a director), there are circumstances when this person can be liable for the debts of the corporation. In other words, the person would not be liable for the corporation’s debts as a shareholder, but as a director. Under the CBCA, directors have a number of duties and liabilities (see Duties and liabilities of directors and officers). For example, it says that directors can be held liable for certain acts or for failure to act.


Here's Justin Trudeau at the Ho Chi Minh stock exchange.
Image

Image
#14947799
Ten years ago this corporate personhood thing was a big deal to Thom Hartman.
I listened to him day after day harping on it on the radio, on his show on Air America.
He said ---
1] This started in the 1800s.
2] The 14th Amendment {maybe 15th?} was written to make Black former slaves be citizens in all states. It was not carefully worded.
3] Under English Common Law there had been 2 kinds of persons for a few hundred years. a] Ordinary human persons, and b] corporations. Corps. were added because only a person could sue or be sued. And businesses need to be able to sue to enforce contracts, and other corps and humans needed to be able to sue corps. for the same reason.
4] In about 1880 or so, there was a case before the Supreme Court on this. Someone claimed that the word "Person" in the 14th Amend. must be extended to corp. persons. The SC ruled NO, corps. are not persons for this purpose. That the writers of the Amendment, the Congressmen who voted for it, the state legislators who voted to adopt it, etc. had *not* INTENDED for it to mean that it applied to Corps. also.
5] However, the top clerk of the SC was an ex-CEO of a RR comp. and he typed up a nice cover page [like was always done] to inform future readers of what the ruling was. However, he lied. He said that the ruling was that YES, corps are persons.
6] Apparently, everyone for a while went on the basis of the real ruling, but people die and such. Years later someone was doing research for another court case and just read the cover page. He then cited it as a precedent. Others then also cited it.
7] It became settled law. Settled even though it was the opposite of what the court had ruled. Later SC decisions were decided to conform to the cover page take on the case and not the real SC decision.
8] The most recent ruling of the SC is just a continuation of that process.

All this is what Thom Hartman said on the radio 10 years ago.

NO, corps. should not be persons for election law. They were not when I was growing up in the 50s & 60s. They could not make campaign contributions. Only people persons could do that. Corp. executives could use their own money and shareholders could too; to get the Corp. take into the money flow to campaigns.

If corp. are persons for all purposes there are 2 main problems. This means that a line must be drawn somewhere. The only question is where is the best place for the human person citizens of America. I specify humans because the Founders could not have imagined the idea that corps. should be persons for any purpose other than the Common Law purpose.

What are those 2 problems that they must disallow the idea that Corps. are persons for all purposes. OK, here goes.
1] Corps. can't be allowed to vote or hold public office. Why? Because they can be created very easily. It just takes 3 or 4 persons and a few dollars. They would not even need to be human persons. It would cost next to nothing [compared to what we spend now on elections] for the rich to create more corps. that there are human citizens in America. If there were more corp. voting than humans then the corps. would always win all elections and Americas would be totally Fucked.
2] If Corps.were humans for all purposes then wouldn't the 13th Amendment apply to them. They could not be owned. So, who owns them? Who gets the profit they generate?

These were my thoughts as I listened to Thom 10 years ago.
#14948099
jimjam wrote:Yup …. they ^look about the same to me :?:

Well, in actual fact, GM has a superior standing, because a minor child does not have the capacity to contract.
#14948102
blackjack21 wrote:Well, in actual fact, GM has a superior standing, because a minor child does not have the capacity to contract.

What??? You agree that a corporation and a person are different :cheers:

Oh wait …. "superior standing" :?: Let me consult my legal team and get back to you ..

(I think Drlee nailed it when he named you the champion of false equivalencies)
#14948105
Rancid wrote:According to US law, the answer is yes.

Is this the same US law that once stated: the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. :?:

I know Rancid. My purpose is to, as a devil's advocate, point out the absurdity and rot in our laws/government where money pretty much always trumps (no pun intended) people.
#14948107
jimjam wrote:Is this the same US law that once stated: the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. :?:

I know Rancid. My purpose is to, as a devil's advocate, point out the absurdity and rot in our laws/government where money pretty much always trumps (no pun intended) people.


I know I know.

Question, can a corporation commit murder? If so, can it be executed in a state that has the death penalty?
#14948109
@blackjack21

Except that you can give corporations and other organizations a special status than doesn't tie into other aspects of the political system such as voting. They don't need to be considered persons. While they are considered persons under US law I don't see how you can legitimately justify it in any case. Considering corporations people undermines existing political systems that rely on citizens for their functionality.
#14948115
jimjam wrote:What??? You agree that a corporation and a person are different

Oh wait …. "superior standing" Let me consult my legal team and get back to you ..

(I think Drlee nailed it when he named you the champion of false equivalencies)

You placed a picture of GM headquarters in juxtaposition to a picture of a small girl. I believe Drlee calls that "trolling" when I do it. Comparing a small girl's capacity to contract relative to that of General Motors is a valid legal comparison. In actual fact, the little girl does not have a capacity to contract, whereas General Motors does have such capacity.

jimjam wrote:Is this the same US law that once stated: the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

You do realize that the proponents of the 3/5ths Compromise were abolitionists, right? They weren't saying blacks are 3/5ths of a human. :roll:

Oxymandias wrote:Except that you can give corporations and other organizations a special status than doesn't tie into other aspects of the political system such as voting. They don't need to be considered persons.

There is a legal distinction between a "person" and a "people".

Oxymandias wrote:While they are considered persons under US law I don't see how you can legitimately justify it in any case.

Corporate entities have the capacity to sue and to be sued. That makes them persons (not people) under the law. The law is not saying that a corporation is the same thing as a human. It is saying that a corporation has the same legal capacity to contract as a natural person.

Oxymandias wrote:Considering corporations people undermines existing political systems that rely on citizens for their functionality.

Corporations rely on citizens to direct them as well. Otherwise, they are inert and meaningless.

A city, for example, is a municipal corporation. A water company is a corporation. A university is a corporation.
#14948121
@blackjack21

There is a legal distinction between a "person" and a "people".


For all intents and purposes they mean the same thing. I'm not talking about US law here and US law isn't relevant to me.

Corporate entities have the capacity to sue and to be sued. That makes them persons (not people) under the law. The law is not saying that a corporation is the same thing as a human. It is saying that a corporation has the same legal capacity to contract as a natural person.


Except that there are ways to give corporate entities to be capable of suing or being sued without giving them the status of person. You can give a corporation the same legal capacity to contract as a person without giving them all the other rights a person has since no one will state that a corporation is actually a person, as in, an individual human being. Based on this, there is no reason to justify this law.

Corporations rely on citizens to direct them as well. Otherwise, they are inert and meaningless.


Except that corporations have utility motivations (i.e. profit) that undermine existing political systems. Citizens don't act as political active citizens in a corporation, they act as employees in coordination with a larger hierarchy whose goal is profit. Corporations aren't suited to interfering in political matters since their motivations do not always correlate with public interests.

A city, for example, is a municipal corporation.


No, it isn't. A city isn't a corporation and I don't know how you can say that. Furthermore, the city itself (along with the local government which runs it) doesn't not participate in the political system. Individual citizens participate in the political system.

A water company is a corporation.


Yup. However that doesn't mean it should participate in the political system. Corporate interests do not always align with public interests. It's like saying a terrorist organization should be considered people because citizens are a part of it and therefore should participate in the political system. Clearly the interest of a terrorist organization doesn't align with public interests.

A university is a corporation.


Yes, and because they aren't public the US is in the mess that it's in. Universities in the US are more concerned about profit than they are about actually educating their own students or the general population. This is an amazing example of why corporate interests do not always align with public ones.
#14948132
Oxymandias wrote:Except that there are ways to give corporate entities to be capable of suing or being sued without giving them the status of person. You can give a corporation the same legal capacity to contract as a person without giving them all the other rights a person has since no one will state that a corporation is actually a person, as in, an individual human being. Based on this, there is no reason to justify this law.

Why don't your start a list of what rights a corporation has that you would strip? If you would strip them from a corporation, why wouldn't you strip them from an individual too?

Oxymandias wrote:Except that corporations have utility motivations (i.e. profit) that undermine existing political systems.

So your issue is with for-profit corporations? As I have said, in America a local city is a corporation. A lot of people do not think this way, but that is a fact. America's constitution looks a lot like a corporate charter. We have lots of non-profit corporations as well. Universities are corporations, but you do not seem to be railing against them. Government agencies are corporations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency is a corporation. Do you realize that, or am I conducting a class on corporate law right now?

Oxymandias wrote:Citizens don't act as political active citizens in a corporation, they act as employees in coordination with a larger hierarchy whose goal is profit.

Employee isn't the only role. There are also officers and directors. They act on behalf of the shareholders.

Oxymandias wrote:Corporations aren't suited to interfering in political matters since their motivations do not always correlate with public interests.

Again, you need to be clear about what you are objecting to. The IRS is a corporation. It fulfills a government function, but it is a corporation. Municipal corporations facilitate political matters. That's what they do.

5 U.S. Code § 103 - Government corporation

Since roughly the Roosevelt Era, much of the United States government runs under administrative law, where Congress delegates powers to corporations called "agencies." These agencies are corporations which promulgate regulations that have the force and effect of law subject to the powers delegated to them and by the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, among other legislation.

So for example, if the IRS or the EPA sue you, they are suing you in their corporate name as a corporate person.


Oxymandias wrote:No, it isn't. A city isn't a corporation and I don't know how you can say that.

I can say that, because it is a corporation.

Oxymandias wrote:Furthermore, the city itself (along with the local government which runs it) doesn't not participate in the political system.

The local government is a municipal corporation. It is most definitely a corporation. Corporations do not have the right to vote for members of the legislature or the executive, but that doesn't mean they do not have any role in politics.

Oxymandias wrote:However that doesn't mean it should participate in the political system. Corporate interests do not always align with public interests.

Many corporations are created in furtherance of the public interest. A water company is an example.

Oxymandias wrote:Yes, and because they aren't public the US is in the mess that it's in.

I'm not sure what you mean? Most universities are not publicly traded for profit. Most are run as non-profit organizations. Some are created by the government. Some are private. The US has many varieties of universities.

Oxymandias wrote:Universities in the US are more concerned about profit than they are about actually educating their own students or the general population. This is an amazing example of why corporate interests do not always align with public ones.

Non-profit organizations are not concerned about profit, but they are most certainly concerned about money. That's very often why corporations are formed--resource pooling.
#14948146
jimjam wrote:Yup …. they ^look about the same to me :?:

How would they look the same? You compare apples with oranges. However, the owners of GM are natural persons too, as well as its executives and employees are.
#14948147
Seems a bizarre notion to be against. Surely you would like a company to be accountable to the same standards as a person in terms of liability and wouldn't want those liabilities compromised by technicalities?
#14948150
We use abstractions to make models in order to make things work or work smooth(er). How could any civilisation exist without that? Legal persons are abstract constructs without appearance, so jimjam's comparison is even more meaningless than it looks at first sight.

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]