# No love for the Democrats' Constitutional Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254 "2014-09-12T02:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/61 "2014-09-17T19:46:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Because one of the fundamental principles of English Common Law, upon which our entire legal system is based, is that only a _person_ may sue or be party to a lawsuit except in very specific and exotic circumstances. By and large, that’s the entire reason the concept of corporate personhood came to _exist_ - so that a corporation could sue as a single entity, or be sued without the plaintiff having to separately serve each and every one of its shareholders and attempt to enforce separate judgments upon them all. A constitutional amendment that denies a corporation “personhood” needs not strip long established case law from them. > [@Smapti](#): > > Exactly. Do you understand why stripping corporations of personhood is a bad idea now? Well, no. Same point. There’s nothing that says a constitutional amendment denying corporations personhood negates previous case law EXCEPT in cases where corporations have claimed constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/62 "2014-09-17T19:49:35Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Well, no. Same point. There’s nothing that says a constitutional amendment denying corporations personhood negates previous case law EXCEPT in cases where corporations have claimed constitutional rights. Exactly. So the ACLU can no longer assert that it has the right to speak or publish freely, because those are constitutional rights, and the ACLU is not a person and so it doesn’t have them. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/63 "2014-09-17T19:53:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Lets’ get real. Corporation are not people. People bleed and die and have children, corporations don’t do any of that. A corporation is a legal tool that people, almost entirely rich people, use to advance their interests. Period. America is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And corporations, my friend, are not people. So then the New York Times is not protected by the First Amendment? Beyond that, please quote me the part of Citizens United which declared corporations were people. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/64 "2014-09-17T19:53:49Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Exactly. So the ACLU can no longer assert that it has the right to speak or publish freely, because those are constitutional rights, and the ACLU is not a person and so it doesn’t have them. Couldn’t this difficulty, such as it is, easily be bypassed by having an individual, a person, be named as the publisher for the ACLU, and having its speech similarly identified with specific people? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/65 "2014-09-17T19:56:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then the New York Times is not protected by the First Amendment? > > Beyond that, please quote me the part of Citizens United which declared corporations were people. If Citizens United does not give corporations rights to free speech same as people, then it can easily be overturned by statute, there not being any First Amendment issues, right? Congress or state legislatures can pass a law saying “We limit campaign contributions in our state to human beings” and no problem … right? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/66 "2014-09-17T19:58:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I said ALMOST entirely for a reason. You are just holding up exceptions that have little or no consequence on the issue of money in politics. A distraction, in other words. Most corporations that are trying to influence public policy do it for monetary reasons, not ideological ones. If they were people, they’d be sociopaths, totally obsessed with money and not at all concerned with human freedom or human suffering. So then you’re utterly confident that if you were to look over a list of the various unions and corporations sanctioned by McCain-Feingold their goal was money not ideology? BTW, that’s not meant as snark. I think if you looked into it, you’d recognize you were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/67 "2014-09-17T19:58:44Z")
An individual cannot be a 501©(3) corporation. So if I want to help fund the ACLU’s speech, I could no longer get a tax deduction. An individual would also be individually-liable for his speech. So if we wants to stake our a position about, say, Scientologists, he’s gonna have to cover his own litigation expenses. He would have to put his personal assets on the line. An individual would also be subject to far fewer accounting requirements. So if I wanted to ensure that my donations are really being spent on speech and not wild ACLU orgies, I’d have to rely on the investigations of my local newspaper…oh wait…they don’t exist anymore. Etc. etc. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/68 "2014-09-17T20:04:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Exactly. So the ACLU can no longer assert that it has the right to speak or publish freely, because those are constitutional rights, and the ACLU is not a person and so it doesn’t have them. First of all, you keep singling out a SINGLE corporation, such as the ACLU. I guess, cause since they’re a liberal organization, you think that better exemplifies your point. Except I’ve already said you wouldn’t single out any single corporation. So you couldn’t make a law that applies to the ACLU corporation, but not say, Citizens United. I’ve also already said it doesn’t mean a corporation has ZERO rights. But a law passed that applies to EVERY corporation cannot be contested in court on the grounds that it violates a corporations constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/69 "2014-09-17T20:12:43Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Except I’ve already said you wouldn’t single out any single corporation. So you couldn’t make a law that applies to the ACLU corporation, but not say, Citizens United. Why not? Since, per your assertion, corporations have no constitutional rights, what do you think is stopping any given legislature from passing a law singling out any single corporation? > [@](#): > > I’ve also already said it doesn’t mean a corporation has ZERO rights. Right… they just don’t have the right of speech, the press, assembly, redress of grievances, protection against search and seizure, presumption of innocence, right to a fair and speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination, or due process of law. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/70 "2014-09-17T20:24:51Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Why not? Since, per your assertion, corporations have no constitutional rights, what do you think is stopping any given legislature from passing a law singling out any single corporation? Very simple. A law that singles out one corporation could be contested on those grounds alone. > [@Smapti](#): > > Right… they just don’t have the right of speech, the press, assembly, redress of grievances, protection against search and seizure, presumption of innocence, right to a fair and speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination, or due process of law. That’s another contortion. Statutes AND case law have already given corporations certain rights. Those would not be rescinded. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/71 "2014-09-17T20:26:33Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Very simple. A law that singles out one corporation could be contested on those grounds alone. By _who_? Keep in mind, you need standing to sue - and the corporation can’t sue, because it’s not a person and has no constitutional right of petition. > [@](#): > > That’s another contortion. Statutes AND case law have already given corporations certain rights. Those would not be rescinded. None of the rights I named above are granted by “statutes and case law”. They are granted by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/72 "2014-09-17T20:29:02Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then the New York Times is not protected by the First Amendment? > > Beyond that, please quote me the part of Citizens United which declared corporations were people. The Supreme Court said that the right to free speech is not limited to the identity of the speaker. Meaning it COULD be a corporation. Essentially saying that a corporation has the same rights as a person. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/73 "2014-09-17T20:31:15Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > The Supreme Court said that the right to free speech is not limited to the identity of the speaker. Meaning it COULD be a corporation. Essentially saying that a corporation has the same rights as a person. Which you would strip from them via amendment. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/74 "2014-09-17T20:39:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > By _who_? Keep in mind, you need standing to sue - and the corporation can’t sue, because it’s not a person and has no constitutional right of petition. Again, I NEVER said that a corporation couldn’t sue. You keep extrapolating that from somewhere off into space I’m not quite sure of. > [@Smapti](#): > > None of the rights I named above are granted by “statutes and case law”. > > They are granted by the Constitution. Every single state has statutes defining rules, behaviors, and RIGHTS of corporations. Every single state has had cases filed and rulings made refining and clarifying those rights. The federal government as well. If you piled up all the paperwork on all of those statutes and case law, it would be MOUNTAINS high. So I’m not sure how one could say corporations have no rights except those listed in the constitution. That’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/75 "2014-09-17T20:45:27Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which you would strip from them via amendment. To limit a corporation’s ability to influence public policy or an election by investing corporate funds, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/76 "2014-09-17T20:45:29Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > So I’m not sure how one could say corporations have no rights except those listed in the constitution. That’s absurd. Do corporations, in your opinion, possess the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances? ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/77 "2014-09-17T21:07:26Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Do corporations, in your opinion, possess the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances? As individual citizens, sure. As a corporate entity, absolutely not. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/78 "2014-09-17T21:09:03Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > As individual citizens, sure. As a corporate entity, absolutely not. So your answer is no, corporations do not have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/79 "2014-09-17T21:16:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > If Citizens United does not give corporations rights to free speech same as people, then it can easily be overturned by statute, there not being any First Amendment issues, right? Congress or state legislatures can pass a law saying “We limit campaign contributions in our state to human beings” and no problem … right? The First Amendment protects speech. It doesn’t specify whether the speech originates with a person or with a corporation. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/80 "2014-09-17T21:22:36Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So your answer is no, corporations do not have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances? Let me clarify . . . a corporation MAY have those, under certain conditions as determined by statute and/or case law, but they’re NOT guaranteed by the constitution the same way as they are for an individual. So if congress or a state legislature wants to limit any of those abilities, specifically the ability of corporations to contribute to campaigns, ballot initiatives, or any other public policy matters, those corporations can’t claim constitutional grounds for overturning them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254.md?page=5)