Should the Constitution be amended to explicitly state that only human beings qualify as persons?

this sort of thing was never covered in the us constitution for the same reason that they didn't include other insane ideas -- simple common sense. you and i, and the framers of the constitution must generally feel we can tell the difference between a man and a tree. if not, then it is a sad state of affairs. yet your comment addresses an important point. these fools are trying to tell us that a piece of paper is a man. obviously their agenda is to allow corporations to buy and sell american elections like produce.

where is congress? where is the senate? where is the outrage? this is an assault on the republic, these judges guilty of treason.

Person is a legal term that applies to many entities as well as individuals (natural persons). Allowing an entity to be a person has many benefits. When it comes to the political process, I believe that there should be a distinction between individuals and corporations with regard to political speech. Corporations are not endowed by their creator(s) with inalienable rights--life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Corporations do not breath, have souls, dream, hope, fight and die for liberty. They should not have the same political rights as you or I. So to answer your question, no I do not think the constitution should be amended, because it is useful to have corporations be persons for many purposes, however, voting and political speech are not among them. I think a future court will overturn this ruling--though it may be awhile.

It shouldn't be necessary, since there is no logical reason that such a rule couldn't be passed by an act of Congress. The Constitution says nothing about this, and it should be within Congress' power to enact laws pertaining to the legal status of corporations. But since the Court seems determined to repeat the unjustified claim to legal personhood from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, an amendment might be a good idea.

Corporations are not people. Giving them "rights" doesn't make anyone more free.

you're in general suited. An ammendment, as quickly as ratified, won't be able to be "bumped off", yet a clean ammendment could be presented that "undoes" a prior ammendment. as an occasion, the 18th ammenment, ratified in 1919, abolished liquor in the full u . s .. The twenty first ammendment, ratified in 1933, reversed the 18th ammendment. What ammendments must be made sooner or later could be a pleasing communicate, particularly while carried out between smart those with open, yet real looking minds. the place i think of there must be some significant variations in the present day may well be in the element of phrases of service for countless elected officers. i think of it would earnings the rustic if the presidential term became limited to a minimum of one 6 12 months term with the know-how that the guy ought to run returned to be re-elected after somebody else had served after her or him. In different phrases somebody must be president 2 or perhaps 3 phrases, yet in no way 2 in a row. this might enable a president to benefit the interest, and then dedicate 5 plus years to doing the interest devoid of having to fret approximately getting re-elected. we would get so lots extra out of the president that way. the different exchange i might propose is regarding the phrases of congress. they could desire to be re-elected another 12 months. think of roughly that. a clean individual gets elected. It takes them the extra advantageous element of a 12 months to even learn the interest. Then they spend the 2nd 12 months working for re-election. They do this each and each different 12 months, so incredibly, we get one 12 months of artwork out of each and every 2 years a congressman or woman is in elected place of work. exchange theirs to an identical 6 years because of the fact the senators, we would be far extra advantageous off.

To treat corporations as persons under the law is consistent with legal precedent for the last 230 or so years. Thus, the Supreme Court here is promoting nothing new but upholding precedent.

But, if corporations are legal fictions as you say, then by that logic they should not pay taxes; indeed, they cannot because they are not legal persons. I don't want to live in a nation where Corporations pay no taxes.

Cheers!

©2010 SinisterMatt. All Rights Reserved.

That is a lie! That is NOT what the Supreme Court ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not sensor a group of PEOPLE just because it happened to be organized as a corporation.

Yes

I like the idea- IMHO the ideally any campaign would and should be funded by a lot of small contributions by individuals. so the next question is what sort of restrictions are you placing?

Isn't a shame that it's probably necessary to do that? I can't believe the Founders thought of corporations as persons.

Ah, but what if we create sentient robots or genetically engineer animals to have human intelligence? That may sound silly now, but consider that amendments we create in the present can have repercussions hundreds of years in the future.