Originally Posted by htperr6565

perhaps a corporation is seen as a group of people, and groups of people have rights, but senate seats go to 'one' person.

Originally Posted by daddio

if they pass the qualifications.

Gonna need a birth certificate to prove age.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The americans with disabilities act would require them to have a larger meeting place for the senate.

Anyway the topic sounds ridiculous, however the whole concept of corporations being people protected by the 1st and 14th amendments is even more ridiculous, yet the SCOTUS has taken that position.

I wonder if I should try it for local office. Incorporate myself and then run for city commission or something.

Originally Posted by Politico

The wording of the 14th is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....." and they HAVE been granted protection.

The requirements for running for president is:

be a natural born citizen of the United States;
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

I'm sure it would at least make it to the Supreme Court, therefore making headlines and bringing light to the farce that is corporate personhood.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

perhaps a corporation is seen as a group of people, and groups of people have rights, but senate seats go to 'one' person.

Originally Posted by Slon

The entire idea is stupid. Limited liability, my ass. If they want to limit their liability, they better say so in each and every contract.

Originally Posted by Slon

Well, I think it's ridiculous because they are treated as separate "people." They are not people. The entire ownership by proxy (owning a corporation and thus owning its assets) is stupid because it leaves the owner as someone who is not responsible for debts incurred, but does own the assets.

Originally Posted by Slon

The entire idea is stupid. Limited liability, my ass. If they want to limit their liability, they better say so in each and every contract.

Originally Posted by Politico

got my reply,

Damn I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Slon

The entire idea is stupid. Limited liability, my ass. If they want to limit their liability, they better say so in each and every contract.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Let me analyze his reply that he gave you:



Well technically I meant ANY office, not just the POTUS. But this is his claim, not an argument.



Well thats fine and all, but I don't see the bearing it has on things. In fact, because the SCOTUS has ruled that congress cannot really limit speech from corporations anymore than it limits speech from individuals, the SCOTUS has re-inforced the idea that corporations are people, and therefore congress doesn't have the power to limit them. Also, the SCOTUS has said that corporations are a type of person protected by the 14th amendment. So the constitution DOES affirm some positive things for the people and isn't always just a negative as to what the government can do.



This is true, although I'm struggling with whether this has any bearing on whether a company could run for national office. Certainly it would seem viable for a corporation to run for local office, because the statutes would be legally binding as local law.



But the constitution isn't forbidding corporations from being called people. In fact the SCOTUS has said that corporations are a type of person and therefore protected by the 14th amendment. So once again I fail to see how this prevents a corporation from running for National or local office.



I'm not familiar with agency law. This might be where the idea falls apart. I'll have to check into it.



But the constitution DOES recognize corporations, the SCOTUS has said that corporations are protected as a type of person by the 14th amendment. So this is simply wrong. And if they're people per the 14th amendment, then congress cannot limit their actions in accordance with the limitations that the constitution puts on congress. So this entire sentence is contradictory with known law about corporations being recognized as people via the 14th amendment. Once again, being trumped by the constitution doesn't mean anything here because its the constitution claiming that corporations are people (per SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th amendment).



The only argument your lawyer friend made that could possibly put a wrench in the works is agency law. But agency law presumably is not a part of the constitution, and in fact cannot violate the constitution, because the constitution trumps ALL laws. So I'd argue no matter what agency law says, there could be a case that the constitution itself by recognizing corporations as people through SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th amendment, does in fact guarantee the right of corporations to run for public office (either locally or nationally).

Originally Posted by John Drake

Well, yes, but don't all the above arguments founder on the knowledge that the Constitution recognizes several types of "persons" who cannot even vote?

Originally Posted by htperr6565

beg pardon???

Originally Posted by John Drake

That's basically what a corporation does.

You better go back and reread your history of Capitalism. Limited liability is necessary to a modern economy and has been since corporations were invented in what, the 1400's? Nobody is going to invest in Ford if they realize their ten shares at $1000 might fetch them a bill of 10 billion someday.
I think even Ayn knew that