The Bailout

[Bomb#20]

Legally speaking, a corporation is a person. They should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting.

Legally speaking, "a corporation is a person" is lawyers' technical jargon for "You can sue a corporation without having to figure out who all the shareholders are and drag them individually into court". It does not signify, and was never designed to signify, metaphysical personhood.

Allow me to introduce you to 'Citizens United'.....

Apparently, lots of other people in this thread either haven't heard, or pretend to not have heard, of this SCOTUS decision.

Exactly which part of 'But the SCOTUS did not make those decisions on the grounds that "a corporation is a person".' didn't you understand?

Yes, we have all heard of Citizens United. No, none of us is pretending to not have heard of this SCOTUS decision. The left has spread a great deal of disinformation about that decision and is collectively extremely resistant to accepting correction on its misstatements of the law. Here ya go...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

By all means, point out to us where Kennedy relied on "a corporation is a person".

 

[Bomb#20]

Corporations are fined for a variety of reasons that pass Constitutional muster.

Certainly -- when they do things the individuals in them have no constitutional right to do.

More importantly, you asked how a corporation could be punished, and I gave an example.

If you mean punished in a legal sense, sure; but the legal issue I raised with JH was not whether a corporation could be punished, but whether it could be punished for so-called "corporate speech" without thereby simultaneously illegally punishing a human for exercising his legal right to protected human free speech.

If you mean punished in a philosophical sense, no. A corporation has no consciousness, brain, pleasure center, pain center, goals, or fears; it consequently has no interests. Legal threats against a corporation are designed to deter the employees and owners of the corporation, not to deter the corporation itself. It makes no more logical sense to punish a corporation for "corporate speech" than to punish the photocopier that actually printed the offending material.

I also find your characterization that "the government does not want heard" to be misleading for two reasons. Government represents "the people". So any law that is passed is presumably represents "the people.

That isn't plausible. In the first place, the people are allowed half a bit per year of communication bandwidth to tell our rulers how we want to be ruled. If we didn't choose to spend our precious half-bit on BCRA, then how can BCRA represent us? And in the second place, even if we assume a law represents the people, which law? BCRA or the Constitution? They conflict.

Moreover, this hypothetical fine is for what is said not for what is heard. So in these examples, a more accurate description is "the people does not want said".

But the FEC made no attempt to block production or showings of "Hillary the Movie" -- it prohibited advertising it. The government's intent was evidently to suppress hearing the message, not saying it.

What privileges would you remove from corporate charters?

I haven’t given that much thought because I was making the point that corporations can be punished. Maybe progressively reduce the limited liability depending on the number if transgressions.

An interesting proposal. So does that mean that if Congress enacts a law specifying that Simon & Schuster will lose its limited liability privilege if it goes ahead with publishing the Quran, there's no constitutional issue since Congress is only punishing a corporation and the First Amendment guarantees rights only to people?

I would think so, but then again, I am not a constitutional lawyer.

Case law doesn't support that interpretation. The New York Times is a corporation and yet it's won a bunch of free speech cases. Do all you folks griping about corporate free speech really want Richard Nixon to have been able to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers?

I do know that corporations are granted privileges (not rights) by the states, and states can withdraw those privileges. I do not know whether there is a constitutional right to not have privileges revoked.

If governments are revoking them for an illegal purpose, generally yes. There's no way the SCOTUS would let my hypothetical anti-freedom-of-religion law stand.

 

[laughing dog]

Certainly -- when they do things the individuals in them have no constitutional right to do.


If you mean punished in a legal sense, sure; but the legal issue I raised with JH was not whether a corporation could be punished, but whether it could be punished for so-called "corporate speech" without thereby simultaneously illegally punishing a human for exercising his legal right to protected human free speech.

The answer is yes.

If you mean punished in a philosophical sense, no. A corporation has no consciousness, brain, pleasure center, pain center, goals, or fears; it consequently has no interests. Legal threats against a corporation are designed to deter the employees and owners of the corporation, not to deter the corporation itself. It makes no more logical sense to punish a corporation for "corporate speech" than to punish the photocopier that actually printed the offending material.

Basically, you are saying it is moot to talk about corporations in any meaningful sense. Most people recognize that in conversation, a referral to the entity "corporation" refers to the business enterprise, its owners and its employees.

That isn't plausible. In the first place, the people are allowed half a bit per year of communication bandwidth to tell our rulers how we want to be ruled. If we didn't choose to spend our precious half-bit on BCRA, then how can BCRA represent us? And in the second place, even if we assume a law represents the people, which law? BCRA or the Constitution? They conflict.

Really? How do they conflict?
And, law passed by "the people" (i.e. the government), represents the will of the people - that is how representative government works. The fact that "the people" are not unanimous in their views is not relevant. If "the people" do not like the laws their representative enact, "the people" replace them with those who do represent their views and change those laws. That is how the system works.

But the FEC made no attempt to block production or showings of "Hillary the Movie" -- it prohibited advertising it. The government's intent was evidently to suppress hearing the message, not saying it.

According to  Hillary:_The_Movie, there was an attempt to block the showing.

Case law doesn't support that interpretation. The New York Times is a corporation and yet it's won a bunch of free speech cases.

I was under the impression that the NY Times won on the freedom of the press issue which has nothing to do with corporate structure or personhood.

If governments are revoking them for an illegal purpose, generally yes. There's no way the SCOTUS would let my hypothetical anti-freedom-of-religion law stand.

Probably, but that does not mean it would rule against a campaign ad issue.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do so many people obsess on whether "a corporation is a person"?

Because the Bill of Rights reserves the ability of government to meddle in the lives of individuals (citizens).

No, not exclusively. Everyone can "meddle" in the lives of others. Government has MORE power to "meddle" in the lives of others, and those who are rich and powerful have more power than others to "meddle" in the lives of individuals. But there is no exclusive right of government to "meddle" in people's lives.

SCOTUS in contemporary decisions decided corporations are also protected from said meddling, despite the . . .

No it did not. Corporations are not protected from meddling. Except in the sense that corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights which all groups and individuals have. SCOTUS only decided that corporations cannot be deprived of 1st Amendment rights.

. . . despite the concept of corporation not existing in the Constitution.

The "Girl Scouts" is not named in the Constitution. So therefore the Girl Scouts has no rights?

The 1st Amendment guarantees rights to everyone, including those who are a corporation, or acting as a group. You can't deny them their rights just because they operate as a group which is not named in the Constitution.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Bomb#20]

The answer is yes.
Basically, you are saying it is moot to talk about corporations in any meaningful sense.

That's a silly interpretation of what I wrote. You can say a lot of meaningful things about a bacterium, or a toaster, or a corporation, without anthropomorphizing it -- without pretending it has goals and interests.

Most people recognize that in conversation, a referral to the entity "corporation" refers to the business enterprise, its owners and its employees.

And yet that somehow typically flies out the window when the topic is legal protection of those people's constitutional rights. All of a sudden when we don't censor so-called "corporate speech" it supposedly means a corporation gets to vote in an election or some such nonsense.

That isn't plausible. In the first place, the people are allowed half a bit per year of communication bandwidth to tell our rulers how we want to be ruled. If we didn't choose to spend our precious half-bit on BCRA, then how can BCRA represent us? And in the second place, even if we assume a law represents the people, which law? BCRA or the Constitution? They conflict.

Really? How do they conflict?

Quick summary: The BCRA says Congress can suppress a movie. The Constitution says they can't. If you want details, read Kennedy's ruling. If the issue doesn't seem that clear-cut to you, consider that on questioning by the SCOTUS the government's lawyer admitted that the BCRA also implies Congress can ban a book.

And, law passed by "the people" (i.e. the government), represents the will of the people - that is how representative government works. The fact that "the people" are not unanimous in their views is not relevant. If "the people" do not like the laws their representative enact, "the people" replace them with those who do represent their views and change those laws. That is how the system works.

Why do you believe that? Because a high-school civics teacher said so? You are reciting American civic religion at me. Civic religion is exactly as deserving of respect as every other religion.

In point of fact, the people do not like the laws their representatives enact, but the people do not replace them with those who do represent their views and change those laws. They can't. That is not how the system works. The people want term limits; they will never be enacted. The people want national referendums; they will never be enacted. The people want to abolish the electoral college; it will never be abolished. These features of our system are locked in by the game-theoretic consequences of having geographical districts and first-past-the-post victory rules. It is not in the interests of most Congresspeople to allow the current system to be changed to one where Congresspeople effectively represent their constituents' views and interests. All we get to do is pick the Republican or pick the Democrat; and our Republican and Democrat rulers like it that way.

But the FEC made no attempt to block production or showings of "Hillary the Movie" -- it prohibited advertising it. The government's intent was evidently to suppress hearing the message, not saying it.

According to  Hillary:_The_Movie, there was an attempt to block the showing.

The broadcast, not the showing. The movie was shown in theaters and distributed on DVD; the FEC didn't do anything about that except try to keep potential watchers from finding out from TV that it existed.

Case law doesn't support that interpretation. The New York Times is a corporation and yet it's won a bunch of free speech cases.

I was under the impression that the NY Times won on the freedom of the press issue which has nothing to do with corporate structure or personhood.

Your impression was correct. Likewise, Citizens United won on the freedom of speech issue which has nothing to do with corporate structure or personhood. There's nothing in the First Amendment to say you lose your freedom of the press rights if you use a corporation to operate your press; likewise there's nothing in the First Amendment to say you lose your freedom of speech rights if you use a corporation to operate your microphone.

If governments are revoking them for an illegal purpose, generally yes. There's no way the SCOTUS would let my hypothetical anti-freedom-of-religion law stand.

Probably, but that does not mean it would rule against a campaign ad issue.

True -- there's nothing enforcing consistency of principles on SCOTUS justices except their own intellectual honesty. It's often been a slender reed to rely on.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why do so many people obsess on whether "a corporation is a person"?

Because the Bill of Rights reserves the ability of government to meddle in the lives of individuals (citizens).

No, not exclusively. Everyone can "meddle" in the lives of others. Government has MORE power to "meddle" in the lives of others, and those who are rich and powerful have more power than others to "meddle" in the lives of individuals. But there is no exclusive right of government to "meddle" in people's lives.

"Reserves" was a typo. JH most likely meant "Because the Bill of Rights restricts the ability of government to meddle in the lives of individuals (citizens)."

 

[ZiprHead]

This is how Bonespurs should have signed.

 

[Politesse]

Legally speaking, a corporation is a person. They should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting.

Legally speaking, "a corporation is a person" is lawyers' technical jargon for "You can sue a corporation without having to figure out who all the shareholders are and drag them individually into court". It does not signify, and was never designed to signify, metaphysical personhood.

Who said anything about metaphysical personhood? This is a question of legal personhood.

 

[Politesse]

Why do so many people obsess on whether "a corporation is a person"?

The only difference between the crybaby corporate-bashers who use this language and the corporations they hate is that they wish they had the same power those corporations have so they could use it to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense and squash everyone who gets in their way.

I am already recognized as a legal person. If it were true that corporations had civil rights that I don't, that would certainly be a reason to protest. But it isn't, I already have the ability to create massive wealth if I were both motivated and talented enough to do so. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that it is self-serving nonsense with no bearing in reality, and I tend to think that bizarre fictions should not be the functional basis of jurisprudence.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why do so many people obsess on whether "a corporation is a person"?

The only difference between the crybaby corporate-bashers who use this language and the corporations they hate is that they wish they had the same power those corporations have so they could use it to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense and squash everyone who gets in their way.

 

[Bomb#20]

Legally speaking, a corporation is a person. They should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting.

Legally speaking, "a corporation is a person" is lawyers' technical jargon for "You can sue a corporation without having to figure out who all the shareholders are and drag them individually into court". It does not signify, and was never designed to signify, metaphysical personhood.

Who said anything about metaphysical personhood? This is a question of legal personhood.

ZiprHead said something about metaphysical personhood -- the whole notion that personhood implies they should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting derives from a metaphysical concept of personhood, not from a legal concept of personhood. Why on earth would being able to sue without dragging all the shareholders into court imply those shareholders should get to split an extra share of the handout beyond each one's personal $1,200? The same goes for every other argument along similar lines, such as the old "Corporate personhood is evil because it means Coca Cola gets a vote." canard. They're all fallacies of equivocation between legal and metaphysical personhood.

 

[Politesse]

Who said anything about metaphysical personhood? This is a question of legal personhood.

ZiprHead said something about metaphysical personhood -- the whole notion that personhood implies they should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting derives from a metaphysical concept of personhood, not from a legal concept of personhood. Why on earth would being able to sue without dragging all the shareholders into court imply those shareholders should get to split an extra share of the handout beyond each one's personal $1,200? The same goes for every other argument along similar lines, such as the old "Corporate personhood is evil because it means Coca Cola gets a vote." canard. They're all fallacies of equivocation between legal and metaphysical personhood.

Well, if you're ignorant of almost the entire situation, why bother holding an opinion on it? No, that is not the only legal right that has been tied to the fictive personhood of corporations in US law.

 

[Bomb#20]

Who said anything about metaphysical personhood? This is a question of legal personhood.

... Why on earth would being able to sue without dragging all the shareholders into court imply those shareholders should get to split an extra share of the handout beyond each one's personal $1,200? ... They're all fallacies of equivocation between legal and metaphysical personhood.

Well, if you're ignorant of almost the entire situation, why bother holding an opinion on it? No, that is not the only legal right that has been tied to the fictive personhood of corporations in US law.

Oh for the love of god! If I use the phrase "count noses" are you going to lecture me about how people vote with their hands? The other legal conventions that have been tied to the fictive personhood of corporations in US law are technicalities and court conveniences much like the one I pointed out to represent the lot of them. But by all means, Mr. Law Professor, educate poor little ignorant-of-almost-the-entire-situation me as to which legal right that has been tied to the fictive personhood of corporations in US law implies they should get the $1,200 everybody else is getting.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I would like to caution people that being in a corporation really dosn't provide a person with special protection! Again, the limited liability is more pertaining to debt. Not responsible. If you break a law while in a corporation, you don't have protection.

 

[ZiprHead]

Over 43,000 US millionaires will get ‘stimulus’ averaging $1.6 million each

At least 43,000 American millionaires who are too rich to get coronavirus stimulus checks are getting a far bigger boost — averaging $1.6 million each, according to a congressional committee.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act trumpeted its assistance for working families and small businesses, but it apparently contains an even bigger benefit for wealthy business owners, the committee found.

The act allows pass-through businesses — ones taxed under individual income, rather than corporate — an unlimited amount of deductions against their non-business income, such as capital gains, the Washington Post said. They can also use losses to avoid paying taxes in other years.

That gives the roughly 43,000 individual tax filers who make at least $1 million a year a savings of $70.3 billion — or about $1.6 million apiece, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

 

[ZiprHead]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Tax the fucking churches, NOW!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Tax the fucking churches, NOW!

I don't see that this is a reason to tax them. Besides, they're non-profits, there's no income to tax.

 

[ZiprHead]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Tax the fucking churches, NOW!

I don't see that this is a reason to tax them. Besides, they're non-profits, there's no income to tax.

And all this is big business. According to CNN, the US mega-churches bring in on average about $6.5 million each year. They sell DVD’s, self-help books and receive big donations from their congregations. Some open ‘franchises’, or new churches, all over the world – promoting themselves in the same way a major brand would.

https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/mega-churches-making-mega-bucks/

Yeah, no profit being made.


Joel Osteen's mansion


TD Jakes mansion

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Tax the fucking churches, NOW!

So, the question becomes, who wasn't ​approved for one of these loans?