Corporate Personhood

I'd like to put forth a disclaimer, in that I am not - by any measure, an astute political analyst. What follows is more or less an attempt to explore the ramifications of how a sovereign nation may seemingly legislate away the personification of its citizenship. It's a bit longer than I intended, so my apologies go out to those who decide to read on.Also with any luck I can become more familiar with these issues and understand them better than I currently do The line of questioning below presupposes America's political process may be somehow undermined as access to certain rights traditionally reserved for United States citizens become available to partnerships and corporate entities (providing they meet the minimum requirements set forth by the legislative definition given toward the status of 'personhood'). Quick background - millions of dollars are spent every election season on various communications supporting or opposing candidates or ballot measures, which become otherwise known as 'targets' and these expenditures - performed without coordinating or consulting with the target, are a commonplace practice known as independent spending.Generally speaking, there are two forms of independent spending.The first - independent expenditure may be seen as communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly and specifically identified political target. Respectively, electioneering communication is communication that occurs near an election and identifies a target while not expressly advocating the election or defeat of the target. That said, at the federal level, the primary source of campaign funds is comprised by individuals in the form of the aforementioned actualized United States citizen, with political action committees positioning themselves a distant second. Accordingly, contributions from both are limited, with direct contributions from corporations and labor unions prohibited.Enter to the fray, the Supreme Court's recently overturned twenty something year old ruling which previously permitted state laws effectively prohibiting corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to then legally produce and run their own campaign ads. Perhaps the original legislation could have been viewed as a check or a balance, providing finance could somehow summon power within a political landscape. Anyhow, concerns quickly arose.It was predicted actions of this nature may unleash a torrent of corporate and union cash into the political realm, with the potential to establish a uniquely distinct paradigm capable of transforming how congressional and presidential campaigns are executed in the future (i.e. an unequalized electoral process). One may argue a dynamic in this fashion may perhaps serve as a detriment towards carbon based, air breathing 'people' - most specifically the legal citizen of a sovereign nation, considering a corporation - as a 'person', does not seem to share much essential commonality (love o' country?) with actual people and citizens (i.e. they are not flesh or blood, nor have they the spirit of life, nay do they even shit or pay taxes, etc.).Regardless, an immediate consequence of these decisions would seem to be an overall increase in speech, with this increase primarily benefiting only groups advantaged by the liberalization of laws governing independent expenditures (i.e. individuals, corporations, and groups not governed by Federal Election Commission contribution limits). For instance, labor unions (i.e. AFSCME), trade groups (i.e. U.S. Chamber o' Commerce), and social welfare nonprofits which organize under Section 501(c)(4) of the internal revenue code (i.e. NRA) needn't disclose donors.While these groups were once prohibited from explicitly calling for a federal candidate's election or defeat prior to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, or sponsoring ads serving as the functional equivalent of such express advocacy, such is no longer the case. By the supreme court's legislative repeal, the United States government effectively granted more - if unequal, freedom towards all of these organizations to discuss and promote political views close to elections (although 501(c)(4) groups still have to observe IRS guidelines restricting any main focus toward partisan politics).Yet, this naturally places traditional political speakers - like candidates and parties, with an apparent disadvantage.This dilemma seemingly presents itself as these various independent individuals and groups which we formerly referenced in check are now free to open the floodgates and spend unlimited money from sources other than individuals and political committees (which must continue to contribute according to the amounts traditionally limited by the Federal Election Commission). Again, sources such as personal finances, corporate profits, union dues, as well as large private donations would seem to appropriately account for the majority of any significant increase with regard to overall campaign spending.It appears the relative landscape - and indeed power, of the FEC-regulated entities and independent speakers has undergone an almost diametric alteration by the legal provision for some 'person(s)' to inject unregulated amounts of financing in order to stimulate their campaign endeavors, without providing such an opportunity on equal footing. Lets view the campaign finance world as a sort of artificial, hyper-regulated market created by the government for a minute. In this model, power becomes determined primarily through spending within the marketplace.In this vein, the requirement that only government-approved money may legally enter the market system is an underlying fundamental element. This is to suggest that the statutory contribution caps may effectively operate as, and in turn maintain a method of electoral equilibrium. The idea is that power could ascertain a form of balance based on the size of the contributions each entity could accept.However, in practice - it would seem half the market of political spending is still extensively regulated, while the other half is extensively free, after the on January 21, 2010 reversal on behalf of the Supreme Court.And it would seem there can be no equilibrium after such a ruling, as long as the system of regulation is premised the way it is - and probably should be, on a closed system. This presupposes the virtue of any hyper-regulated market allocated toward campaign finance must hinge definitively on the exclusion of monetary contributions gained outside of the sovereign system (not to mention that recapturing some essence of coherency with regard to any form of electoral equilibrium is, as a policy matter, critical to the continued functionality of any model describing an effective campaign finance market).And so, providing the political process engineered by the government of the United States is somehow undermined as the title of 'personhood' is applied to partnerships and corporate entities, in what ways might the political process be effected by reserving the right to implement independent expenditures and electioneering communications, and the likes, strictly to actualized citizens of the United States rather than those simply meeting the requirements of 'personhood' status?In what ways would actions taken toward this direction provide an injustice for the political landscape of American citizens, partisans, corporations and partnerships, as well as international corporate entities with vested interests?Does a corporate fictional ‘personhood’ encroach upon American citizenry in such a way that such a nation may begin to shed its sovereignty, or perhaps worse - attempt to assimilate all ‘persons’ through legislative imperialism?If an international corporation has a say in the realm of American politics due to it's being identified as a 'person', should any and all entities qualifying as a 'person' be afforded the same rights as a national American citizen?In there any looking back once citizenship is internationally personified?Good god One LoveEdited by Bailey, : added jive ..Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Perhaps this begs the question of whether silence is simply silence regardless who’s keepin’ mum? To be sure, there must be strong ethical points in support of why failed executives shouldn't have to comply with standard judiciary requests inquiring what they may know in general - and when they knew it, with regard to an unsuccessful business venture attempted via American taxpayer capitol (considering the U.S. government hasn't a penny of its own), as well as whether or not all the information they submit to acquire huge loans and grants was actually completed, etc..However, I'd surmise, whether or not affording the Fifth Amendment privilege towards suspect corporate entities effectively serves justice within a rule of law nation may raise quicker objections. I'm not at liberty to say really ..Though it's true, I most always refuse to answer questions providing no wrongdoing took place One Love

It seems a fair number of people take issue when corporations hide behind the Fifth Amendment afforded them via ‘corporate personhood’, refusing to answer even basic questions, as it suits their liability.This, in contrast to perhaps taking issue with ‘corporate personhood’ with regard to its potential ability to establish a particular candidacy or maybe implement a particular policy. That’s all.The former translation was just a bit more tongue in cheek ..One Love

Indeed subbie, yet the participants within these corporate scandals effectively navigate their paths of collusion around provisions such as these. This is simply business as usual, or so it seems, which is why I first identify (Message 62) the electoral imbalance as presenting itself as a more formidable opponent with regard to the topic op.And while your point is well taken, it’s seems worth noting the ambiguity introduced within that case through the dreaded, yet fascinating, ‘’footnote 11’. With this ‘lil doo hicky, the potential opportunity for a corporate records custodian to oppose certain corporate documents subpoenas was left exposed by the courts - providing the suspect could effectively demonstrate how a jury may no otherwise, but inevitably, conclude that they manufactured the records personally (i.e. as with a one-person corporation, etc.). The question has yet to ever receive another visit from the court fairy.Finally, though perhaps a bit aside, the fairly recent decision on behalf of those responsible for overseeing a large (failed) corporate venture tasked with copperfielding a tisk over 500 million in taxpayer funding into a black hole may perhaps speak volumes. When they were asked for directions to the black hole during an intimate witness-badgering session, the handlers certainly exercised the Fifth amendment right against self incrimination, but not until first agreeing - in print, to testify as to its GPS coordinates under oath before the committee's investigative subcommittee. However, I digress ..As I said in Message 68, I most always refuse to answer questions providing no wrongdoing took place One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

People seem to be more or less attempting to articulate their displeasure with the liberalization of corporate access to politics when they begin suggesting various corporations have questionable access to government. There does appear to be a hue of irony present in that corporation’s indeed don’t appear to have undue access to government as a function of ‘being people’ (or whatever), however it rather appears their manifest access to government may have lent a hardy assist in legislating their status regarding ‘personhood’, as a function of being a Federal corporate citizen.I’d concede your sentiment as fairly objective otherwise, considering the 2010 Supreme Court repeal was obviously heavily funded and this competent level of funding directly relates to any alleged or potential ‘undue’ access toward the governing bodies which may have been accomplished. However, while I agree the success seems - and likely is, intimately related to the finance, it is the success which is determining the liberalization of the concept of what a ‘person’ may legally consist of.In this sense, I may consider whether having a shit tonna money often appears to be simply the function of forming corporations. In the end, the law differentiates between ‘people’ and ‘artificial people’. Where human beings (i.e. natural people) are consistently identified as people and the statute term may, with the right inclination, include associations, corporations, labor organizations, legal representatives, partnerships, receivers, standard trustees or trustees in bankruptcy and such - all but the former will conform to the lawful definition of an artificial person as one created and devised by human laws for the express purposes of society and government.This is what distinguishes the corporation from the natural person.It is, in legal speak, what begins to differentiate the Federal or U.S. citizen (i.e. corporation) from the American or Constitutional Citizen (i.e. your mom). Ultimately though, I think people get pissy when the definition of person appears elevated to the status - by seemingly being given the rights, of Joe Sovereign Shit-taking Tax-paying Citizen. Perhaps some feel as though there's a bit of a sleight of hand at play as the bait appears to be switched.However, the 14th Amendment goes the distance towards creating and defining citizenship within the U.S.. These are matters of being recognized as a ‘citizen’ with certain civil rights afforded by government or a ‘Citizen’ with specific inalienable rights as endowed by another than a bureaucrat. A long standing contention which no one had yet the inkling to judicially decide to the contrary was held by many for eons which suggested there was no such thing as a ‘citizen of the United States’, except by first becoming a citizen of one of the states which had come to form such a spectacular union.A citizen of any one of the States of the Union was, and still is, then thought to be held - if not first called, to be a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. Much like 'god' or 'country' wind up, they are all legal constructs; that is, they exist in our mind as arguably useful (or useless) legal and philosophical concepts. Just as countries don't exist without imaginations, neither do Federal corporate citizens, which is why the framework of their existence must be established before they can be observed.Not only is it totally foreign to the idea's established within the Constitution to conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, it's completely inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution. The fact that there are now both Federal citizens and Constitutional Citizens, with respective fundamental elements, and that this is too little known - much less properly understood, seems to stir the fear of the unknown.This is where the phantom chasing derives as far as one can tell, and Citizens United really has little to do with it other than rekindling ol’ flames in my view. I'm not suggesting I have it all figured out by any stretch, but I'm wise enough to understand arguing the rules with criminals is a losing proposition.One Love

ABE:I must say Dr. A, when I hear the term ’good people of Washington, D.C.’ the irony of the ‘supreme’ courts verdict with regard to the Dred Scott case is what initially smacks me - the dirty, rotten, racist fargan iceholes. I humbly request your forgive my bitterness in this regard please, as it's in no way directed towards those whom fate has since destined as natural citizens of that specific territory at all.I hear ya Doc, but are we talkin about the good natural ones or the good artificial ones Seriously though, providing such things (i.e. Kris Kringle, ‘good’ people of Washington D.C., etc.) aren’t merely other useful fictions, I’d reckon they - having had their say in the Dred Scott case, wouldn’t take issue with my reasoning so far. And while the Slaughter-House Cases may be seen as due some well deserved credit for overruling at least a portion of that ‘supreme’ - and so one would think good, verdict via the virgin interpretation of the relatively new (at the time) Fourteenth Amendment, I don’t think I’ve observed - for what it’s worth, where the Supreme Court has actually ever explicitly overruled the Dred Scott case.Nevertheless, had you suggested the folks enjoying words more than chocolate cake or plain sense remaining within the District - apart from those you’ve characterized, would like to have a word, it’d be easily envisaged. Perhaps they may have done just that as they out voiced those towards the opinion of the former in those pesky matters relating to the intricacies of corporate slavery, as well as the bizarre notions encountered when considering the potential legal and social - not to mention financial, ramifications of naturalizing perhaps cattle or a corporate assembly of cattle farmers and even various stock (i.e. imports descending from African territories, etc.) as U.S. citizens within the boundaries of one of the States of the Union or perhaps one of the Federal territories like D.C. as you mentioned (it's no wonder Scott was so dreaded).Most rhetoric aside, there simply doesn’t seem to be any legal definition of a ‘citizen of the United States’ prior to what presents itself as the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, primarily because everyone (presumed a natural person) to which the Constitution was understood to apply had primary Citizenship in one of States of the Union. And not to mention, secondly, that without the later concepts (i.e. corporate assemblies as artificial persons, slaves as natural people, women as voters, etc.) there existed no plain justification or opportunity to develop the language at the time.In this sense, rather than anybody else (i.e. property such as slaves, entities such as corporate assemblies, etc.), the language of the Constitution is directly referencing the sovereign state citizen as a ‘citizen of the United States’, for no other particular reason then there wasn’t anyone else as to which such a document may obviously or specifically refer outside of the sovereign States of the Union. It was this term which found use identifying state Citizens eligible to hold office under the suffrage laws, providing the requirement to have primary allegiance to one of the several states impressed upon such a candidate under the Constitution was met.It’s also one reason Goldman Sachs, while perhaps running the presidency to a degree, can’t actually run for president (yet) One LoveEdited by Bailey, : ABE ..

No need to be presumptuous good man, I was just noting in Message 85 how ...

quote:

---

the 14th Amendment goes the distance towards creating and defining citizenship within the U.S..

---

I tried my hand at expanding the thought in more detail within Message 87, suggesting

quote:

---

there simply doesn’t seem to be any legal definition of a ‘citizen of the United States’ prior to what presents itself as the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, primarily because everyone (presumed a natural person) to which the Constitution was understood to apply had primary Citizenship in one of States of the Union. And not to mention, secondly, that without the later concepts (i.e. corporate assemblies as artificial persons, slaves as natural people, women as voters, etc.) there existed no plain justification or opportunity to develop the language at the time.

---

I don’t disagree with a thing you’ve presented NoNukes, and perhaps like you, I’ve yet to see anyone at all suggest that a Federal ‘U.S. citizen’ was recognized within the original vision of the Constitution.Just as the traditional American Citizen’s primary allegiance wasn’t given towards the Federal territories nor could the traditional Citizen’s primary identification be viewed as a not-yet-existential ‘U.S. Citizen’, rather the Citizen’s primary allegiance received grant through the sovereignty of their respective state with one’s primary identification coming naturally into view, most plainly and obviously, as a Citizen of their particular State within the Union ...And so then, a Citizen of the Union.Ultimately, citizens are just members of the political community to which they subscribe, which is to say they’re the people tasked with comprising their community. It is citizens who then submit themselves to government dominion within this framework in an attempt to advance their general welfare, as well as the protection of their individual and collective rights. The way I see it, as the American experience continued over time, experience began to suggest in what ways these communities may benefit from a form of national government expressed for national purposes.And it would seem since the separate governments of the distinct States, although bound by the articles of confederation, were apparently found wanting in a number of arenas (i.e. foreign relations, etc.), they ordained and established the U.S. government. These separate states then put their heads together and set out defining the limitations of this latter creations power(s). All this, accomplished by way of Constitution and Amendment, in hot pursuit of a ‘more perfect union’ to establish what would eventually present variant forms of justice, civility, defence, and liberty and the likes.In my view, the Fourteenth Amendment interpretation was advantageous in the sense that, rather then employing the term ‘citizen of the United States’ as used in the Constitution to deceive people with regard to the true intent of the language and meaning of the original document, Congress simply modified the legal definition by employing the latter Amendment to describe a new type of ‘citizen’ whose primary allegiance was to the Federal government (i.e. Washington, D.C.) rather than any one of the States of the Union. I understand this pisses some people off, but I don’t see exactly how it’s unreasonable. Besides, who the hell is Puerto Rico supposed to pay tribute to otherwise?In the end we all seem to agree they’re a later creation, gaining legal form and function through Amendments to the original document. I rarely question the man’s reasoning ...As his charm, knowledge and wit are clearly only surpassed by my addiction to nicotine.One Love

To be sure Doc, I’m not arguing that the general inhabitants residing within the designated areas of any municipal corporation operating under the name United States, in the form of an artificial person, are not U.S. citizens any more than I’m arguing they weren’t created through legislature.When the Federal government is viewed as operating in the form of an artificial corporate person under the legal name United States, it should make sense it’s a corporate municipality created by the legislature and expressed for purposes of government. As with any legal municipal body, it would then consist of designated areas whose inhabitants (i.e. residents of D.C., Puerto Rico, etc.) consent - with regard to such designation, is purely irrelevant; like it or not, they’re U.S. citizens.However, in this sense, though a corporation may act as a citizen itself while maintaining its own agents, citizens and officers - the legal recognition of those accessing citizenry through that corporation no longer exists once that corporation dissolves. Which is to say that, if D.C. was somehow deprived of its status as a sovereign territory through any form of Federal municipal dissolution, the citizenship of those gaining access through their respective Statehood should not be affected; where residents of Puerto Rico, for example, would simply cease to be U.S. citizens.Of course this could be said of any residents in exile whose Statehood dissolved or receded from the Union I suppose.Ultimately, it's up to the good people of Washington D.C. to learn what privileges, regulations and rights they are provided within the particular version of Federal U.S. citizenry which they have been afforded, as there are often distinctions to be made. For example, the residents of Puerto Rico are afforded the legal status of U.S. citizens even though they aren’t required to contribute even a half skekel towards federal income tax. And while they don’t need green cards to live or work within any of the States, they also don’t get a vote in Washington’s election cycle. Just sayin' ..One Love

These posts should be making it abundantly clear.The diversity of citizenship rules expressed by the Federal courts weren't legally equipped to view slaves as people - artificial, natural or otherwise (no person=no citizen). That doesn't change the fact they were. Anyway, I’m inclined to disagree the electoral imbalance developed through Citizens United enhances democracy if that’s what your inferring.It should not be an impossible feat for a nation such as America to establish their laws to reflect all people are human flesh and blood creatures - none of which are cows, and businesses are neither, considering all that’s been accomplished.The experiment’s obviously not over. The failure of the definition of American citizenship was imminent given the racist slant imbued within the original definition of ‘people’ - you know that. The Constitution still has a lot of baggage, as that’s what political documents are comprised of, and the 14th amendment doesn’t change that, but rather contributes to it.The potential to develop a framework for collective naturalization toward's national citizenship is always greater, and the process easier, once the notions that people are never cows or personal property become lawfully established. While the Emancipation Proclamation along with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments effectively nullified the Scott decision without explicitly overturning it, the result was simply the introduction of new challenges to face.And while I understand some won’t be up to the challenge, and others will capitalize on it for personal and corporate greed, I don't perceive the few currently lobbying - for say, natural people's identities to be viewed as cattle, as a threat.Creating an environment of ambiguity concerning artificial persons and natural persons in an attempt to grant a blanket amnesty of citizenship doesn’t seem to be a helpful strategy. Well, it does in the sense that corporations can now legally develop an electoral imbalance in an attempt to secure specific policy measures while, generally, hedging their bets.Regardless of the present’s tendency to paint the past as simpler, rest assured, politics were no less mischievous and people no less crass. However, this argument that things are all ironed out seems to fly in the face of contradiction considering the widespread winds of political discourse swirling ‘roun. Annn dehn ..One LoveEdited by Bailey, : title ..