And what happens when that speech is against the interest of the government? If we have no guarantee that some group, acting in the interest of the people, can’t at some point be shut down because the government doesn’t like what they’re saying, it’s a no go. A major part of the reasoning behind these rights being enumerated in the constitution to begin with was because they were what the founders felt the British were restricting to them and were an important part of the revolution and founding of the country.
Settling for statutes that let certain groups effectively have personhood related to certain rights and not others is just begging for corruption. Imagine a world where one party gets enough power and they use statutes to limit the speech of groups that oppose them.
While I understand your desired effect, this isn’t the solution. If this is something you wanted to tackle, I think the nuclear approach of removing all rights from all non-people will ultimately cause far more harm than good.
You keep saying these things could be handled statutorily, but you also keep advocating for the removal of any guarantee that they would be handled statutorily. The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent the government from doing things it wants to do. Are you seriously suggesting that the government should have the ability to not enforce corporate property rights? To toss them out the window if it so felt motivated?
You don’t even know what that means, let alone if it’s a problem.
Stipulating that this sort of thing would even work (since no one answered my question above), then all you’d have to do is build some basic rights into the amendment. The difference would be that these rights would be written with our current knowledge of the power of corporations, instead of the original rights which were written with only real persons in mind.
Because I think the OP isn’t really advocating for the dissolution of corporate personhood, but just for making them limited persons, without some of the rights real persons have. Because if he’s also wanting to get rid of their ability to enter into contracts or the liability shield, I agree that what he wants is absolutely stupid. Our economy is based on the concept that this is possible.
How much “presence” is required? Do they have to be there every day, punching out widgets? Can voting at annual stockholders’ meetings be enough? Where would you draw the line between the two?
Distort markets? That’s not playing with a full house, Kimmy_Gibbler. The government created that market through the very laws we’re calling into question. That leaves us with two possibilities: absent these liability shields, the market would be distorted (externalities, moral hazards, etc.); or, with or without the liability shield, the market would operate normally (but differently). Assuming we are leaving off the table that the current market is distorted by the presence of the liability shields, which seems to suit you.
I don’t know how I feel about other kinds of liability shields. Cops have them. Jurors have them. Some I’ve given passing consideration and others have never even occurred to me. I don’t think that corporations are particularly unique as individuals. I could probably be persuaded that liability shields in general are Not Good[sup]TM[/sup]. To throw out something without due consideration, my first inclination would be that a liability shield should only be granted in cases where insurance markets could not exist. The uninsured driver should be covered by insurance—there’s a strong social expectation and that is easily revealed by the use of “uninsured driver” instead of just “driver”—and legislation should support that action, instead of granting him the immunity of empty pockets, as the damage he can cause is deeper than his pockets, and someone will have to pay. Of course, the next problem is: what happens when the insurance company’s pockets are empty? Grr.
This is my response to all of these threads. Take away a corporation’s right of free speech, you take a way those shareholders’ rights of free speech. Or, in your view, is the right of free speech an individual one? If you and your next door neighbor decide to speak jointly about something, then the government can crush you with an iron fist? If not, then tell me the difference between you and your neighbor and corporate speech.
How about “living organisms” instead of “human persons”? It avoids the issue of denying rights to Gallifreyans, Newcomers, Jews, etc.
ETA: Oh, Der Trihs has a point: “sentient intelligences” might be better. I wasn’t sure how to include AI’s without getting corporations snuck in (still ain’t).
Ok, so how do you square that with the fact that one of those rights, the First Amendment’s right peaceably to assemble, presupposes coordinated exercise of constitutional rights?
Again, I have to wonder why the focus here is on denying the right of free speech to corporations. The problem here is the disproportionate influence of the wealthy on our political processes. If that’s the issue, why aren’t we instead talking about a constitutional amendment that limits contributions to and expenditures by candidates for office or for other political messages?
And how about mandatory disclosure of all such transactions?
On the proposed amendment, congress coul make a law forbidding the writing of a letter which purports to express the opinion of the married couple. However, a letter expressing a single opinion which is nevertheless expressly endorsed by each individual in the couple, could not be forbidden.
Although my responses to the above two objections are sufficient, neverthless, my proposal clearly won’t work, so I’ll have to retract it.
Collective action is too integral to human activity for it not to be protected.
Now, it could be that different rights should apply to collectives than to individuals, but working that out is going to take a lot more than a constitutional one-liner.
All the replies I’ve read so far to this thread should understand that every single government agency including the federal gov’t is an incorporated entity. Every state, every local, every county and parish, all incorporated. School districts, public utilities, and on and on. What this in fact means is that these corporations are NOT our de jure government. They are created fictions acting under the color of law as government. They have tricked us into believing they are the de jure government and have succeeded in replacing common law with statutory law and replacing courts of law with administrative hearings. Try bringing up your rights as granted in the Constitution in any administrative hearing and you get thrown out or dismissed and fined or thrown in jail. Try fighting the law and find yourself a loser. The courts always find in favor of the government using obscure and mostly ridiculous citing of case law in ways that many times are unjust. Remember the people are not supposed to be servants to the gov’t. The gov’t is created to protect the rights of the individual from the abuses of gov’t. The gov’t today regularly grants itself authority where none has before been allowed. The granting of this authority to itself is a perversion of gov’t. and fraudulent by nature. It is the same as changing the rules to the game mid-game to accomodate your team because you realize your losing the game. Wake up people.
I fail to see the distinction. So you and your wife write:
Dear Editor, The police protection in this area is terrible.
Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Frylock.
You are saying that Congress could pass a law making this letter illegal if it is the opinion of your family as a whole (which consists of you and your wife only, let say). But it could not pass a law making it illegal for you to sign your name and your wife to sign her name as individuals. What is the functional difference?
