Corporate Personhood: Citing The Fourteenth Amendment Of The Law

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

Should Corporations be Considered People? The recent uproar over whether corporations are people comes from the Citizens United decision. Although we often hear about how this case allows an influx of corporate funds, it is safe to assume that very few people have actually read the opinion. And though the direct and indirect impact on the lives and liberties of the people will forever be affected by allowing corporate influence on their own governing, most go about their daily consumption with barely a thought to the immense impact this has on the land of the free.

He attacks Friedman selective choice of legal realities that help prove his stance and discarding of those that do otherwise as mere “legal fictions”. In that, Denning disputes that Friedman rests his arguments on legal realities such as the law of agency, and dismisses another legal reality – the corporation – for the sake of illustrating how the corporation’s money belongs to its stockholders, customers, and employees but not the real legal owner – the organisation itself. Instead of providing a balanced argument on the legal definitions of terms “corporations” and “agency”, Denning’s stance is mainly concerned with how Friedman conveniently chooses legal facts that only provide backing to his conclusions, instead of tackling these core terms to help support his own argument.

This thinking began the conception of the corporation as a person, albeit for the purposes of protection of the property and contract interests of the entity’s shareholders.

Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

The ideas that corporations are viewed as people in the eyes of the law seems like a farfetched idea. However, with closer examination one cannot help but wonder if this is truly becoming the case. Since the 1950’s the rights of corporations have been expanding through multiple court cases that have charted the way for more recent cases like Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores . To better understand the notion that corporations are sometimes viewed as people it is important to understand the definition of a corporation. In the dictionary, a corporation is defined as a number of persons united in one body for a purpose . Even though it is hard for many to view a corporation as a “person”, it is undeniable that corporations

Another argument that is made regarding corporations having individual rights revolves around the legal right for a company to sue and be sued in the court of law.

corporate entity may be disregarded in those situations where the corporate form is being used to perpetrate injustice, defeat public convenience, or justify wrongful or inequitable conduct. '"

Corporations make America the money-hungry place that is critiqued worldwide. Without the major corporations we see today, like Walmart, Target, and Mcdonald’s, 27 million people would be unemployed and they are very well aware of that (Zillman, Claire). If these giants embody what is wrong in America, why should they have the right to contribute to the candidate they want to help elect? The CEOs of these companies have personal interests they want to protect. These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

Since corporations are not physical things or people, it is very easy for them to avoid any kind of trouble. Corporations have become great at passing on their externalities to the public. An externality is an expense of any kind, whether it is something such as environmental damage or forcing people in an area to pay money for something, that a corporation forces the public to pay for while they privatize all profits. Corporations being externalizing machines fit in very well with their psychopathic behavior. They externalize any cost to the public because they can and it helps them achieve their goal of making as much money as possible. A quote from Robert Monks puts it very well, he says “The corporation is an externalizing machine

The relationship between unions and organization is a touchy one. Dating back to the start of unionization in the 19th century, the two bodies have held opposing viewpoints. Unionization was formed from the opinion that organizations took advantage of workers and some form of a negotiating agreement was needed. There were documented events of workers working long taxing hours for insignificant pay; no healthcare coverage; dangerous working conditions; and gender and or racial discrimination. Companies believed that unionization caused less productivity which endangered profits. Companies also believed that unions interfere in daily processes, and limits the employer’s say over compensation and benefits. The

The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real

This doctrine has been seen as a “two- edged sword,” reason being that at a general level while it was seen as a good decision in that by establishing that corporations are separate legal entities, Salomon 's case endowed the company with the entire requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level, however, it was a bad decision. By extending the benefits of incorporation to small private enterprises, Salomon 's case has promoted fraud and the evasion of legal obligations.