A: The place and date of the birth of the person (in this case, an individual), as well as the individuals responsible for that birth (in this case, mother and father).
Q: What do Articles of Incorporation tell you?
A: The place and date of the birth of a person (in this case, a corporate entity), as well as the individuals responsible for that birth (in this case, the corporate officers).
Obviously, I'm using the term "birth" figuratively (Ever hear of the silent film "Birth of a Nation" or the song "Birth of the Blues"?).
I fail to see what's so hard to understand: For legal purposes, a "person" can either be an individual (i.e. a living human being at the age of majority) or an entity (e.g. a corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, etc).
The simple fact is that "individuals" and "entities" (to use your terms) are not the same thing and never will be. Do you really think the Founding Fathers meant for entities to have the same rights that they gave to individuals? I don't.
This was not a choice/anti-choice post, which means you're trying to change the subject. But I'll play. I am unequivocally pro-choice. A woman should have complete control over her own body - period.
I thought this was a post about what constitutes a person. What's your criteria for personhood?
Leslie:
I've only been a Texan for 18 years. Prior to that I lived in upstate New York, California, Colorado, Germany and Poland. Curious enough for ya? I could have taken the screen name Curious New Yorker/ Californian/Coloradan/German/Pole, but that would be too wordy (and probably a little pretentious, too).
P.S. Why are you prejudiced against Texans?
P.P.S. What's "a amoron"? Shouldn't that be "an amoron"?
Another nice try, CT. But it's pretty obvious that this post is about whether a corporation is a person or not. bringing up fetal "personhood" is way off topic.
Marshall McLuhan once said, "Art is anything you can get away with." The same can be said of personhood.
Historically, what constitutes a "person" has less to do with biology and logic and more to do with politics and expediency.
In the early years of our Republic, slaves were considered three-fifths of a person. The politics behind how this absurd number was agreed upon makes for an interesting history lesson, but it's totally irrelevant today, because (thankfully) slavery was abolished.
Seven decades ago, German law viewed Jews as non-persons, but for expediency's sake, some leading industrialists of the Jewish persuasion were declared "honorary Aryans" and were spared the Holocaust.
Even in this century, personhood was achieved only by completely emerging from the birth canal. After the Supreme Court decision banning so-called partial birth abortion, the head was exempted from this prerequisite to personhood.
Is calling a inanimate organization (like a corporation) a person any more absurd than calling an African-American three-fifths of a person? Each is a "legal fiction" (an actual legal term). One was expedient under slavery, the other is expedient under capitalism.
If you want to change the law to declare that a corporation is not a "person," there are ways of doing this. Carrying clever signs isn't one of them.
I think you've mentioned a constitutional amendment once or twice; that's probably the most efficient way of doing it, rather than taking on commercial statutes state by state.
But don't come crying to me when you're injured by a defective product and you have to join each and every company officer and shareholder as defendants in your lawsuit, because the corporation, as a "non-person", ceases to exist as a defendant, leaving you with no other recourse.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Right ON!
ReplyDeleteEvery corporation has one. In most states, they're called Articles of Incorporation.
ReplyDeleteNice try, CT. But articles of Incorporation are not birth certificates (and corporations are not people).
ReplyDeleteQ: What does a birth certificate tell you?
ReplyDeleteA: The place and date of the birth of the person (in this case, an individual), as well as the individuals responsible for that birth (in this case, mother and father).
Q: What do Articles of Incorporation tell you?
A: The place and date of the birth of a person (in this case, a corporate entity), as well as the individuals responsible for that birth (in this case, the corporate officers).
Obviously, I'm using the term "birth" figuratively (Ever hear of the silent film "Birth of a Nation" or the song "Birth of the Blues"?).
I fail to see what's so hard to understand: For legal purposes, a "person" can either be an individual (i.e. a living human being at the age of majority) or an entity (e.g. a corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, etc).
What I don't understand is this:
How can a living being with 46 chromosones (47 with Down Syndrome), a totally unique DNA fingerprint, a beating heart, a face, fingernails and toenails, a thumb which he or she can suck, a brain, vocal chords and eyelids not be a person - but rather a "product of conception" which an "individual" can unceremoniously throw away?
Anyone care to explain that to me?
The simple fact is that "individuals" and "entities" (to use your terms) are not the same thing and never will be. Do you really think the Founding Fathers meant for entities to have the same rights that they gave to individuals? I don't.
ReplyDeleteWhat about people and "products of conception"?
ReplyDeleteThis was not a choice/anti-choice post, which means you're trying to change the subject. But I'll play. I am unequivocally pro-choice. A woman should have complete control over her own body - period.
ReplyDeleteHa. Love the photo. Have to confess that I'm a little curious about "Curious Texan." Isn't that an oxymoron? Or, maybe just a amoron.
ReplyDeleteTed:
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a post about what constitutes a person. What's your criteria for personhood?
Leslie:
I've only been a Texan for 18 years. Prior to that I lived in upstate New York, California, Colorado, Germany and Poland. Curious enough for ya? I could have taken the screen name Curious New Yorker/ Californian/Coloradan/German/Pole, but that would be too wordy (and probably a little pretentious, too).
P.S. Why are you prejudiced against Texans?
P.P.S. What's "a amoron"? Shouldn't that be "an amoron"?
P.P.P.S. What's your criteria for personhood?
Another nice try, CT. But it's pretty obvious that this post is about whether a corporation is a person or not. bringing up fetal "personhood" is way off topic.
ReplyDeletebringing up fetal "personhood" is way off topic.
ReplyDeleteNot really. Hear me out for a few moments.
Marshall McLuhan once said, "Art is anything you can get away with." The same can be said of personhood.
Historically, what constitutes a "person" has less to do with biology and logic and more to do with politics and expediency.
In the early years of our Republic, slaves were considered three-fifths of a person. The politics behind how this absurd number was agreed upon makes for an interesting history lesson, but it's totally irrelevant today, because (thankfully) slavery was abolished.
Seven decades ago, German law viewed Jews as non-persons, but for expediency's sake, some leading industrialists of the Jewish persuasion were declared "honorary Aryans" and were spared the Holocaust.
Even in this century, personhood was achieved only by completely emerging from the birth canal. After the Supreme Court decision banning so-called partial birth abortion, the head was exempted from this prerequisite to personhood.
Is calling a inanimate organization (like a corporation) a person any more absurd than calling an African-American three-fifths of a person? Each is a "legal fiction" (an actual legal term). One was expedient under slavery, the other is expedient under capitalism.
If you want to change the law to declare that a corporation is not a "person," there are ways of doing this. Carrying clever signs isn't one of them.
I think you've mentioned a constitutional amendment once or twice; that's probably the most efficient way of doing it, rather than taking on commercial statutes state by state.
But don't come crying to me when you're injured by a defective product and you have to join each and every company officer and shareholder as defendants in your lawsuit, because the corporation, as a "non-person", ceases to exist as a defendant, leaving you with no other recourse.
Yes really!
ReplyDelete