[Blue]

I wasn't drafting the amendment with that suggestion, but just indicating the subject matter. There are many aspects of corporate personhood beyond speech which need to be examined and re-examined. The dominance of the large corporation is a legal development which did not exist in the 18th century. It is something which needs to be thought through with more of a clean slate for all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Teddy Roosevelt considered "Big Labor" and "Big Business" to be potentially dangerous entities.

[jeffkrol]

I wasn't drafting the amendment with that suggestion, but just indicating the subject matter. There are many aspects of corporate personhood beyond speech which need to be examined and re-examined. The dominance of the large corporation is a legal development which did not exist in the 18th century. It is something which needs to be thought through with more of a clean slate for all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

There was the East India Company.........

East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)

The East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act) had two key aspects:

Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the East India Company's political functions from its commercial activities. In political matters the East India Company was subordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this, the Act created a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, usually referred to as the Board of Control. The members of the Board were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, and four Privy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the Secretary of State "shall preside at, and be President of the said Board".
Internal Administration of British India: the bill laid the foundation for the centralised and bureaucratic British administration of India which would reach its peak at the beginning of the 20th century during the governor-generalship of George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron Curzon.

Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became apparent that the boundaries between government control and the company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The government felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better treatment of local peoples in British-occupied territories. Edmund Burke, a former East India Company shareholder and diplomat, was moved to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783. The bill was defeated amid lobbying by company loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's recommendations for the appointment of councillors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

East India Company Act 1813 (Charter Act)

The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley and the Marquis of Hastings led to the Company gaining control of all India, except for the Punjab, Sindh, and Nepal. The Indian Princes had become vassals of the Company. But the expense of wars leading to the total control of India strained the Company's finances. The Company was forced to petition Parliament for assistance. This was the background to the Charter Act of 1813 which, among other things:

asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian territories held by the Company;
renewed the charter of the company for a further twenty years, but
deprived the company of its Indian trade monopoly except for trade in tea and the trade with China
required the company to maintain separate and distinct its commercial and territorial accounts
opened India to missionaries

[GeneV]

Teddy Roosevelt considered "Big Labor" and "Big Business" to be potentially dangerous entities.

The place of unions was also not a matter contemplated by the drafters of the constitution, and it would be a good subject to include in any provision regarding the constitutional rights of entities.

[GeneV]

There was the East India Company.........
East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)
East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that was just about it. Adam Smith was not a fan of that company, either.

[jeffkrol]

and that was just about it. Adam smith was not a fan of that company, either.

[mikemike]

I wasn't drafting the amendment with that suggestion, but just indicating the subject matter. There are many aspects of corporate personhood beyond speech which need to be examined and re-examined. The dominance of the large corporation is a legal development which did not exist in the 18th century. It is something which needs to be thought through with more of a clean slate for all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Should we also reconsider the rights of speech and influence wielded by the foundations set up by the wills of these billionaire capitalists such as Rockafeller, Carnegie, Ford, Sloan, Casey, Pew, Johnson, Lilly, and Kellogg? They are certainly as influential and active at throwing around money as speech on public issues as companies are.

On a side note, isn't it ironic that these foundations today are often at odds with the present day incarnations of the oil, auto, drug, and food companies their namesake benefactors founded and built.

[GeneV]

Should we also reconsider the rights of speech and influence wielded by the foundations set up by the wills of these billionaire capitalists such as Rockafeller, Carnegie, Ford, Sloan, Casey, Pew, Johnson, Lilly, and Kellogg? They are certainly as influential and active at throwing around money as speech on public issues as companies are.

Corporate activities--helpful or not-- should be part of the conversation.

[Nesster]

But then, congress, as backed up by scotus, has used its commerce and tax powers (amongst others) to regulate these entities. Will be simpler and cheaper by far to get congress to act in our interests than to somehow amend the constitution to do what?

What with all the lobbying money, I say we get a Pentax FF before we get anything meaningful on the corporate front.

[GeneV]

But then, congress, as backed up by scotus, has used its commerce and tax powers (amongst others) to regulate these entities. Will be simpler and cheaper by far to get congress to act in our interests than to somehow amend the constitution to do what?

What with all the lobbying money, I say we get a Pentax FF before we get anything meaningful on the corporate front.

I think the last sentence sums it up whether it is regulation or amendment. That was my vote, BTW.

[jeffkrol]

But then, congress, as backed up by scotus, has used its commerce and tax powers (amongst others) to regulate these entities. Will be simpler and cheaper by far to get congress to act in our interests than to somehow amend the constitution to do what?

What with all the lobbying money, I say we get a Pentax FF before we get anything meaningful on the corporate front.

The whole concept of corp. as person was set up to avoid any personal liability of individuals in the event of corporate malfeasance.. I believe our big mistake was not to extend these rights in full to corps.. If a corp is guilty of "murder" they should be tried and convicted as such including such things as the death penalty (quickest way to get it eliminated ).. Afterwards or including civil forfeitures... Example, a corporation guilty of theft is barred from commerce (jail) for a period of years and any illegally gained assets confiscated.....which would include CEO's pay (hey legally this happens all the time to individuals who accidentally bought stolen goods, so there is precedent)

IF you can't throw a corp in jail they are not "people"..

biggest crock is this "sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't" game............

[Nesster]

....I say companies engaged in leveraged buy-outs should submit to counceling and invasive ultrasounds of their principals' rear ends.

[jeffkrol]

....I say companies engaged in leveraged buy-outs should submit to counceling and invasive ultrasounds of their principals' rear ends.

Companies forming monopolies and overbreeding should be fixed.. snip snip...

now we have to figure out how to put "ankle bracelets" on them.......

[Ratmagiclady]

That's the question I always ask: if the Constitution were to be re-written, who could be trusted to do it?

The two-party system isn't *in* the Constitution, there's just a lot of procedural and structural bias *towards* it.


As I *said,* people need to understand the one we've got before thinking they are qualified to change it.

And that's why the 'Tea Party' accomplished *nothing* but to drag the Republicans Radical Right on *intrusive positions on social issues and the same old rich-favoring stonewalling, big military spending, and blaming the Dems who are left with Neocon messes they want to *redouble.* .....* While screaming about being about the precise opposite of that. Right here, the Baggers were in total denial that they were 'really' about the things they said in their echo chamber and which actually they did themselves... for real... That they now try to justify in the name of 'small government.' And 'jobs.' When it's the opposite. They still claim that 'If we give a bigger cut to the richest, they'll start investing in people that give them billions and billions anyway.'


Big fricking *mirage* it walways was.