The Constitution is a Living Document

[1965hawks]

"[The Constitution] is not a living document. It is essentially dead."
__Chuckles the Aesops [sic] Retreat ass clown, reply #4





"The Constitution is dead, dead, dead."
__US Supreme Court ass clown

[Jw2]

does Bill Whittledick ever leave his basement?

[duke_john]

hawks, if you think posting those pics makes you credible, you are dead wrong.

[1965hawks]

DUMB_john, you're brain dead. What you really need to do is shut the fuck up and stick that empty head of yours back up your ass where you usually keep it.

[sweetwater5s9]

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.


This conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts of the corporation. This creates incentives for investment, promotes entrepreneurial activity, and encourages corporate managers to take the risks necessary for growth and innovation. That’s why the Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

[duke_john]

Shut the fuck up, hawkshit, and pound salt.

[1965hawks]

To: jim, D2D, and sweetwater5s9

corporation: An entity (usually a business) having authority under law to act as a single person distinct  from the shareholders who own it and having rights to issue stocks and exist indefinitely.

person: A human being (also termed natural person)

artificial person: An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imagined, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.

Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (1999)

jivin' jim et al,

A corporation is not a natural person. A corporation is an entity created by law and given authority under law to act as a person. Corporations are artificial persons, not human beings. Corporations are not people.

[sweetwater5s9]

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

[1965hawks]

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

sweetwater5s9,

I'm not doubting the validity of that assertion. But there's nothing in the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward ruling that supports the argument that a corporation is a natural person. Truth is, that landmark decision dealt with an entirely different issue--application of the Contract Clause of the US Constitution to private citizens. Your citing that case here is irrelevant

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.”

I know. (See reply #54.)

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

I know. (See reply #54.)

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

At issue here is not whether the stock holders of a corporation have constitutional rights; they obviously do have constitutional rights and so does their corporation. The real issue here is whether corporations are real people, as jivin' jim and D2Dunderhead have argued in this thread and would have us believe. But, obviously, their argument has a serious flaw: a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights so that it can act as a human being. But acting like a person does not make a corporation a real person. Does it, sweetwater5s9? (See reply #54.)
 

 

[duke_john]

hawks has no idea how really stupid he sounds.

[1965hawks]

omiaqt: It would seem to me that liberals are a confused lot.

omiaqt,

After reading the posts in this thread, what's obvious to me is the fact that right-wingnuts chuck_curtis, D2D, duke_john, jim, KensanIV, omiaqt, and sweetwater5s9 are a very confused lot. And if you either can't or won't admit that obvious fact, then you should change your pseudonym from omiaqt to oimnidiot. 

[duke_john]

We're not confused.  You are, foreigner.