A constitutional amendment that denies a corporation “personhood” needs not strip long established case law from them.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Very simple. A law that singles out one corporation could be contested on those grounds alone.
That’s another contortion. Statutes AND case law have already given corporations certain rights. Those would not be rescinded.
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.
None of the rights I named above are granted by “statutes and case law”.
They are granted by the Constitution.
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.
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.
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.
To limit a corporation’s ability to influence public policy or an election by investing corporate funds, yes.
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.
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?
The First Amendment protects speech. It doesn’t specify whether the speech originates with a person or with a corporation.
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.