Corporations as described in the law ( a person)

Submitted by copperfeel on

Forums: 

from free dictionary

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. One benefit is that a corporation's liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud. For private business corporations the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Secretary of State of the incorporating state must include certain information, including the name of the responsible party or parties (incorporators and agent for acceptance of service), the amount of stock it will be authorized to issue, and its purpose. In some states the purpose may be a general statement of any purpose allowed by law, while others require greater specificity. Corporation shareholders elect a board of directors, which in turn adopts bylaws, chooses the officers and hires top management (which in smaller corporations are often the directors and/or shareholders). Annual meetings are required of both the shareholders and the Board, and major policy decisions must be made by resolution of the Board (which often delegates much authority to officers and committees). Issuance of stock of less than $300,000, with no public solicitation and relatively few shareholders, is either automatically approved by the state commissioner of corporations or requires a petition outlining the financing. Some states are considered lax in supervision, have low filing fees and corporate taxes and are popular incorporation states, but corporations must register with Secretary of States of other states where they do substantial business as a "foreign" corporation. Larger stock offerings and/or those offered to the general public require approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission after close scrutiny and approval of a public "prospectus" which details the entire operation of the corporation. There are also non-profit (or not for profit) corporations organized for religious, educational, charitable or public service purposes. Public corporations are those formed by a municipal, state or federal government for public purposes such as operating a dam and utility project. A close corporation is made up of a handful of shareholders with a working or familial connection which is permitted to operate informally without resolutions and regular Board meetings. A de jure corporation is one that is formally operated under the law, while a de facto corporation is one which operates as if it were legal, but without the Articles of Incorporation being valid. Corporations can range from the Corner Mini-Mart to General Electric. (See: articles of incorporation, bylaws, board of directors, close corporation, public corporation, de jure corporation, de facto corporation, shareholder, stock, securities)"

Barron's Finance & Investment Dictionary:
corporation
Home > Library > Business & Finance > Finance and Investment Dictionary

legal entity, chartered by a U.S. state or by the federal government, and separate and distinct from the persons who own it, giving rise to a jurist’s remark that it has “neither a soul to damn nor a body to kick.” Nonetheless, it is regarded by the courts as an artificial person; it may own property, incur debts, sue, or be sued.
It has three chief distinguishing features:

1. limited liability; owners can lose only what they invest.

2. easy transfer of ownership through the sale of shares of stock.

3. continuity of existence.
Other factors helping to explain the popularity of the corporate form of organization are its ability to obtain capital through expanded ownership, and the shareholders’ ability to profit from the growth of the business."



 -------------------------------

 

 

could we simply ask that we re-define what a corporation is?

anyones common sense would tell them that a corporation is not a person.It has no consciousness.,Therefore it cannot act on it's own accord. It needs to be govorned by the people .

 

Could this be achieved somehow? Amend the consitituition or re-interpret it as the way I believe was intended.

Frame your argument

Submitted by Halt I am Alex on

I do agree that corporations are not people. And that they should not have first amendment rights.  
 
Please inform this thread as to WHY they are not people.  WHY they should not be allowed first amednemtn rights.  
 
(I think that whole corporate defenition is a little out of place with what your text message was) 

To resist is to piss in the wind, anyone who does will end up smelling.  
Knowing this why do I defy, my inner voice is yelling.   

I'm no expert by any means,

Submitted by copperfeel on

I'm no expert by any means, what my intention here is to have a conversation about this, maybe learn more myself.

One of the arguments I read was that if a corp. wasn't a person, it couldn't have a banc acct.

I find this hard to believe? Anyways, for those who are interested in the origins, this is what I found when I searched for why/how a corp. can be considered a person.

A recent article on the Straight Dope Web site says that in a famous 1886 case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" having the same rights as human beings based on the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect the rights of former slaves. Not to nitpick, but the Supreme Court made no such decision. If you look at the case in question, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, you see that the court itself never rules on personhood. A court reporter by the name of J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad president) snuck that "ruling" into the books.

— bex, via the Straight Dope Message Board

We've dealt with some weird topics in this column--quantum mechanics, penile lengthening, Circus Peanuts. But for my money the personhood of corporations proves there's nothing so strange as the law.

Most people have a general idea what corporations are. Some may even know that, for most of U.S. history, corporations have been considered "artificial persons." The concept isn't as nutty as it sounds. From a legal standpoint, corporations can do many of the same things that natural persons do--buy and sell property, hire and fire, sue and be sued, and so on.

What most people don't know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk. (Not to mention the clear advantages corporations enjoy: they can be in several places at once, for instance, and at least in theory they're immortal.) Up until the New Deal, many laws regulating corporations were struck down under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment--in fact, that clause was invoked far more often on behalf of corporations than former slaves. Although the doctrine of personhood has been weakened since, even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.)

You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.

Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.

Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.

Does this flaky procedure mean all later cases relying on Santa Clara are null and void? Nope--in the world of the law, a precedent is a precedent, even if it's a stupid one. However, Hartmann's book has caused a stir in legal circles, and some hope the Supreme Court will take another look at corporate personhood. A few naifs think a reversal will spell the end of global corporate tyranny. Ain't gonna happen--fact is, the courts have been chipping away at corporate personhood for years, and you don't exactly see our capitalist overlords suffering from it. But it'd be nice to have a clear-cut ruling, say, that limiting campaign contributions by big businesses doesn't mean you're restricting their First Amendment rights.

— Cecil Adams

 

Maybe what's needed is to

Submitted by nobody on

Maybe what's needed is to find a case that involves corporate personhood and appeal it up to the SCOTUS.  That's kind of what Citizens United did.

That will take a while.

Meanwhile, maybe we can explore what Citizens United did, and then work against it, or subvert its intent.  For example, identify all the big super-pacs, and who they support, and then protest against those candidates.  Maybe that could be an organization - it focuses on identifying people getting money from known corporate super-pacs.

It seems to me that

Submitted by jmd8800 on

It seems to me that corporations are made up of people and therefore each individual of that corporation has human rights. But the sum of those people does not.

And besides... I'll know corporations are people when Texas executes one.

"Since we don't know where we're going we have to stick together in case someone gets there." Ken Kesey

<p><span class="Apple-style

Submitted by OneVoiceOfMany on

"the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers."

Don't corporations get held to a different standard than us now (with tax breaks etc). Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it to.

Kaikala's picture

What about Corporatocracy?

Submitted by Kaikala on

Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by,corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning (notwithstanding the "free market" label).

Corporation, an association of individuals, created by law or underauthority of law, having a 

continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.



 

Pages