For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[MadImmortalMan]

Question:

Would such an amendment be the first mention of the concept of a corporation in the Constitution?

I'm not sure I want to codify that one way or the other in a permanent way right now.

[Ed Anger]

Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

Good thing Ed Anger Inc is a LLC.

[alfred russel]

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.

[MadImmortalMan]

They've singularly failed at the "do no evil" bit. 

[Ideologue]

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.

I probably ought to have said commercial.  You're absolutely right.

[Ideologue]

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

You're reaching Gral levels.

It's also, ironically, the new 20.

[chipwich]

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

I wish i knew what you're trying to communicate

[Razgovory]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

[grumbler]

Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road. 

[mongers]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

This.

[garbon]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

[alfred russel]

Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road. 

I know what a postulate is.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the corporation does not have rights it cannot sue the government when those rights are violated.

A corporation has statutory powers delegated by the legislature.  Those include the power to hold and dispose of property in its own name and to sue and be sued in the courts.  So yes in that sense the corporation has rights, but only to the extent the state legislature has brought them into being by positive law.

One of the cases LaCroix cites -- Pierce - makes this same point.  Justice McReynolds actually holds that corporations strictly speaking have no rights under the 14th Amendment.  Nonetheless because they have property interests entitled to protection under law they do have standing to sue for deprivation of property.

I'm not familiar with Austin (which apparently has been overturned). I am familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner which states that corpotations can sue for damages under the first amendment.

The case says absolutely nothing about corporate "rights".

It's certainly true that corporations have standing to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government.  It was true in Bellotti, it was true in just about every First Amendment press case ever brought. You could easily find hundreds of cases for that proposition.

To repeat myself for about the 4th time in this thread, it is unquestionable that the mere fact that speech is attributable to a corporation does not mean the speech is beyond First Amendment protection.  That is what all those cases cited in Citizens United actually stand for - that, and nothing more than that.  It is precisely in line with Yi's quite logical intuition that "corporate speech" might implicate the rights of individuals and therefore be protectable.  And once again - one could, as a kind of imprecise shorthand - refer to have corporations having "rights" in the sense that may they have standing to sue in Court to redress violations that impact either on the constitutional rights of individuals or on their property interests protected by state law.   But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.

[derspiess]

I know what a postulate is.

I'm supposed to have mine checked in a few years.

[LaCroix]

But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.

citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

and, the point of pierce was to show how it has been interpreted concerning this area of law. it's been 80+ years since mcreynolds wrote pierce. it doesn't matter what pierce said then, but how the courts interpreted it afterward. you asked where i got that quote - bellotti in 1978.