Who would pick the BEST Supreme Court Justices? Bernie Or Hill ?

[cascadiance]

36. The flaw in your argument...

... is that the 14th amendment wasn't consciously written to give artificial persons rights of natural persons when it nebulously had a paragraph in it that only stated "person" instead of qualifying it with "natural" as the intent was clear of the authors of this amendment was to give slaves rights and correct holes in previous constitutional language that had not given POC who are by definition part of the group of "natural persons" in this country, no matter how much some racist bigots might not want them to be defined as such.

It was likely the case that the authors of this amendment hadn't been rigorous enough to ensure that the amendment was written properly within the context of the original constitution and other amendments that defined carefully in places where it was important where laws applied to natural persons and where they applied to artificial persons. Of course the corporatists of earlier time wanted to exploit that and through their court clerk used a head note (not even the court case decision itself!) to set precedent to establish "corporate personhood" rights. Had the original authors seen the history from that amendment onward, you could be damn sure that they would have put the term "natural" in front of the used and abused ambiguous "person" reference in that amendment.

I think I respect Thom Hartmann who's written a book and many other works on this issue and influenced many other scholars to his viewpoint than your opinion and this random note that doesn't seem to be making the case supporting the notion of corporate personhood as an inherent right being necessary for certain entities to get justice. Read more here...

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

As I've noted before, just because corporations and groups like the NAACP aren't natural persons, doesn't mean they can't get rights that people also have, but that they need to get them legislatively, and can have them removed legislative. They shouldn't be inherent birthright rights, as they aren't born the way we as people are with certain rights endowed to us by things like the Bill of Rights that can't be taken away legislatively.

If you ascribe corporations and other groups with inherent rights that can't be changed or removed legislatively, we are setting ourselves up for a corporate or other ugly kind of takeover in terms of taking us as a democracy of natural persons' being the ultimate decision makers in our country. Our founders would most definitely frown on such actions, even if some of the artificial organizations may be a lot more honorable and have good intent more than others.

Do you want an artificial person running for political office. I think it has been tried a few times as a form of protest, but that might someday happen if we continue to worship "corporate personhood" as "good law", when it is just a crappy head note written by a former railroad exec as if it was one of our laws by those that would rather have our system run by those who want us to be ruled by crap like that instead of a true representative democracy.