Proof that a Corporation is NOT a “Person” in the meaning of the U.S. Constitution

Our U.S. Constitution begins with the sentence, “We the People … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.  The first sentence of Article I Section 2, and the first sentence of the 17th Amendment mandate that our Representatives and Senators shall be “chosen” and “elected” “by the People” of “each state”.  Those three sentences establish that our government is to be by and for “the people”.  They include the only two sentences in all seven original Articles in which the word “People” even appears.  The word “person(s)” appears 49 times in today’s Constitution.  The Constitutional meaning of those words is of critical importance to us, since the U.S. Constitution (as ratified and amended) explicitly outlines inherent rights possessed by all individual “Persons”, who, taken as a whole, constitute “the People”.  ( See: Headnote* and Footnote **** below.)

The first two sentences of the third paragraph of Article I Section 2 explicitly assign to the Congress the authority and the responsibility to identify all “Persons … in such Manner as they shall, by Law direct”, and to enumerate them (as per a Constitutional formula).   This identification and enumeration is needed in order to allocate a number of “Representatives” proportional to the “Number” of “Persons” in each state, who are then elected by “the Electors in each State”.  So, to determine ‘What is and what is not a Constitutional “person”?’ we must discern (a) ‘How does the U.S. Constitution itself use the word “person”?’ and (b) ‘How has the U.S. Congress defined a “person”, in complying with its Constitutional duty in paragraph 3 of Article I Section 2, and later, with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment?’

Dispelling the mystique of U.S. supreme Court Judges

The following essay was written and completed in the days preceding the sudden unexpected death of Judge Antonin Scalia.  So I dedicate this essay (and another one, previously composed) to his outrageous memory.  Judge Scalia described himself as a “textualist” – one who believes that “[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver”.  Judge O.W. Holmes described textualists as those who say, “We do not inquire what the legislature meant, we ask only what the statutes mean.”  With respect for the scholarship of Judge Scalia, I submit the following accidentally timely essay, and one other directly relevant, certainly more important essay, each of which catch me employing truly “textualist” argument, such as was professed by Judge Scalia.  (Scalia himself clarified that “textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, which brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be.”)  Read it only if you can appreciate the irony of someone like me honoring the spirit of Antonin Scalia.  Both of them are direct, concise, easy reading. And the one that follows, below, is also light-hearted.

How a professional Ignores and Denies the Truth

You don’t have to be a rabid strict constructionist; you don’t have to believe that the wealthy, slave-owning, colonial “founding fathers” were invariably righteous and wise; you don’t have to believe that each word of the Constitution is sacrosanct and infallible; in order to be able to credibly refer to the actual text of the U.S. Constitution, and thus shed useful light on a question of Constitutional law that is terribly important to all of us.

The U.S. Constitution Itself Proves that a Corporation is NOT a Person!

This proof was discovered and published in 2011, and was last revised in March, 2017. Each of the five bullet points below contains a specific Constitutional reference and quotation. The arguments which follow the quoted text in each section stand alone, but they all mutually reinforce the contention made in the title of this essay. And the arguments help to give meaning to this question regarding a legal technicality that keeps on crippling and stealing our rights, and keeps on killing us, and is getting worse. In this matter, we the people persist in contending that the emperor and his lackeys are parading – without a stitch of clothing. So if the shoe fits wear it. But if it’s a good tool, put it to good use.

Destroying the Movement in Order to Save It?

LEADERSHIP, DISCIPLINE, AND DEMOCRACY IN OUR MOVEMENT

Some leaders of Wisconsin Move to Amend have just publicly announced that they are dis-affiliating from the national Move to Amend organization, and they are forming a new organization which they are calling “United to Amend”. The reasons for this action are not clear to me, and the reasons that I have been given are, on their face, not sufficient to fragment this so important, strong and growing non-partisan, truly grassroots Movement, which has such widespread public support.

Dissecting “Corporate Personhood”

The core principle of our Movement to Amend is not to end “corporate personhood” – it is to end corporate Constitutional rights!

“Corporate personhood” is legal-jargon. The phrase itself is a jarring counter-intuitive oxymoron. We all know that a corporation is not a person! For that reason alone, it’s easy for people to disdain that phrase without even thinking about it. But what does it actually mean? Or maybe the question should be, what do WE actually mean?

Does a Corporation have Constitutional Rights? (Part 2 of 2) A Corporation does NOT count as a Person, under the U.S. Constitution

One of the two key citations in the Constitution bearing on whether a corporation is a ‘person’ under the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, which contains four sentences employing the word “person[s]” – (the two sentences that constitute section 1, and the opening sentences in each of sections 2 and 3).  The 14th Amendment was cited in the preface to an 1886 Supreme Court case. This preface was later exploited to massively rewrite corporate law using the unjustifiable legal theory that a corporation is a Constitutional ‘person’.

Does a Corporation have Constitutional Rights? (Part 1 of 2) A Corporation is a Party, not a Person, under the U.S. Constitution

Is there any truth in the legal theory that a corporation possesses, by authority of the U.S. Constitution, any of the inherent, unalienable rights of a person?

Corporations v. Persons – the struggle that will define the 21st Century

Have you ever wondered what possessed members of the supreme Court to determine that a corporation is a “person”, according to the Constitution? Which passages in the U.S. Constitution (including Amendments) could certain supreme Court Judges have construed to support their determination (in contrast to common understanding and general usage) that a corporation possesses the rights that are explicitly defined for a “person” in the Constitution? Having researched and written about the consequences of this determination several times over the last decade, I became interested and finally compelled to get to this root of the problem. And so I once again studied the Constitution and its Amendments. But this time, I searched in particular for an answer to the question of how in the world anyone can conclude that a corporation possesses the specific Constitutional rights that are described there as belonging to a “person”.

I began by locating and highlighting certain words in the text (such as “corporation”, “company”, “person[s]”, “citizen[s]”, and “people”). Then I studied the context in which those words appear. My search was productive, with results that were startling, informative, and actually simple to comprehend and to share with you.  https://clydewinter.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/666-word-proof-that-a-corporation-is-not-a-person/

The Difference Between a “Person” and a “Party”

My ol’ huntin’ partners, Sid D. Complex and Jesse B. Simple, and I were enjoying a couple beers together this Spring. Jess had just boggled my mind with one of his astute observations on the human condition. So I was trying to appear calm, and in full possession of my faculties while feeling more than usually uncertain and unbalanced.

Sid handled the silence that followed by deftly changing the subject. ‘Know what?’ inquired Sid. ‘The word “Person(s)” appears in the U.S. Constitution 22 times. And that same word pops up 27 times in the Constitutional Amendments (which averages once per Amendment). I know because I counted. But, the word “corporation(s)” doesn’t appear even once in the U.S. Constitution or in any Amendment. What the hell is all this noise about the Supreme Court declaring that a corporation is a person? That’s just plain nuts. A corporation doesn’t bleed, it can’t have kids, a corporation ain’t a person, anybody knows that.’

Smart-as-a-whip Jess came right back, without even pausing to take a deep breath or whet his whistle.

Citizens United Incorporated v. Federal Elections Commission – the Supreme Court Strikes Out

The “Citizens United Inc. v. Federal Elections Commission“ ruling in the first month of 2010 represents “Strike Three” called against the U.S. Supreme Court.

How Wisconsin Legislators Voted on Ending Legalized Bribery

Let’s spotlight two cases where the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench and violated common sense and our shared values. Next we’ll see what our state legislators have (or have not) done recently to arrest and restrain the government corruption that resulted. We’ll look at where the problem is most festering. And there is one important legislative step that is needed right now. Let’s get er done. By the way, there’s a scoop here, too, with news of three grassroots candidates for election to the state legislature, working to expose and unseat some of the very worst of the “Public Enemies” to be described below.

Pay for Elections – Low Cost and Up-Front, or High Cost and Under-the-Table?

Sid. D. Complex was skinning and butchering the deer carcass that had frozen while hanging in his shed, when I stopped by for a visit, and that perennial sheepshead champ, Jess B. Simple, was being careful not to needle him for his procrastination.

“So,” I opened, deftly avoiding controversy, “who d’ya wanna see win the elections this year?”

Uncontested Elections Do Us Disservice (first published in July, 2002)

We have been taught since childhood to disrespect governments that hold meaningless elections, marked by intimidation, in which officials are unopposed for “re-election”, there is only one viable political party, and the citizens, especially the youth, are fed monochromatic propaganda and are never exposed to a vigorous debate on the important issues of the day. When this situation obtains in other lands, we call it a sham of democracy and a hallmark of despots. What about when it occurs here in Ozaukee County?