When it is recognized that corporate ‘personhood’ is the only issue before us, we will demand that Congress legislatively withdraw it and make clear to SCOTUS that it must rectify 120 years of misinterpretation of our not-so-bad-to begin-with Constitution. Until then, we can argue right and wrong.
Does it really matter to WCG (world’s corporate government) that millions are legally killed each year for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? If it doesn’t, then arms manufacturers give a shit and your tax dollars benefit you proportionately to the benefits you receive.
Thing is, your post is assembled in a coherent manner, and has a point which is easily understood by the common, or garden-variety, reader. As such, it was not an appropriate reply to the OP.
Stirring in some logical fallacies
The OP is aligning himself with the position of Justice Rehnquist, famous for, in his words, taking a “dim view of this pathological search for discrimination”, in a case about the right of African Americans to vote in an allegedly private Texas election, as well as writing memos in support of Plessy vs. Ferguson. (For much needed context and greater accuracy, check out wikipedia).
Does it really matter to the OP that millions of children die each year due to unsafe drinking water? I think not.
How corporations became 'persons' Corporate personhood was granted through subterfuge. The Supreme Court was not like it is now. Personhood was rejected 4 times in one year by the court. Then a sneaky deal slipped it through. It has grown to become pretty ugly.
It is not the only issue but it is important.
The real problem is that we don’t take the concept of Corporate Personhood far enough. If we want to go that route we should be able to put corporations that break the law in “jail” (as in: you can’t do any business for X years). I would also be pro death penalty for some of them.
Since Gfactor chose to move this thread to Outer Darkness, I had pretty much resigned it to zombiehood. WFT, I’ve wanked and extensively cited on this subject in half a dozen threads and seldom received any replies to the point. One more small attempt.
SCOTUS has given corporations personhood already. This case could potentially decide that corporate money is commensurate with free speech. This essentially would legalize the corporate buyout of Congress and turn the US Treasury into a corporate slush fund. Not that it isn’t pretty much that already.
Here’s a little more in depth look at what the Court is really looking at.
In which case did they do that? It sure wasn’t Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - that was just something tacked on by a clerk in the headnotes. Then again, I understand that because it was cited as such, that it is indeed a valid precedent. Do any legal Dopers have a fix on the situation? Is Thom Hartman all wet?
Anyway regarding the OP, democracies move by increments. Heck, so do dictatorships. So whether the court decides that the first amendment applies to infinitely lived limited liability corporate superheros matters.
Corporate “personhood” is entirely a creation of SCOTUS’s interpretation of what? Not the Constitution nor its 27 amendments in which the word “corporation” does not appear once .
Before the Civil War, Southern agricultural capital gave counterweight to Northern industrial and the South had a fair hand in composing the SC. The question of corporate personhood began to arise post-bellum after the USG was firmly in the hands of Northern banks and industrial interests and in 1889 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=26 the SC finally ruled that corporations are people.
Irony? The corporation “lost” the suit but for the price of 3 hogs, ($24, a familiar bargain price) corporations were awarded personhood.
More irony? The next year, Congress passed the Sherman-Anti-Trust Act:) and wrote corporate personhood into statute.