rights of a coporation

[pbstu]

anyone know the date of the court case that gave a corporation the rights of a person? i need a rough year, month and day arent needed. thanks.



stu.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by pbstu
anyone know the date of the court case that gave a corporation the rights of a person? i need a rough year, month and day arent needed. thanks.

stu.

Which one?

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 396 was in 1886 (14th ammendment, equal protection under law)


Noble v. Union River Logging, 147 U.S. 165 was in 1893 (bill of rights protection)

Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council was in 1976 (Free speech)

[pbstu]

hmm, i dont know, i know it was early 1900 or late 1800, so i guess its one of those two, thanks for the help shooter.



stu.

[ShooterJM]

It's probably noble v. union logging then. That was much broader in scope then Santa Clara v. SoPac RR.

[shartley]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
It's probably noble v. union logging then. That was much broader in scope then Santa Clara v. SoPac RR.
Yes, it was broader, but normally “precedents” are sighted, not broadness, and because of that, I would have to go with the earlier ruling.

I would go with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. But I would not call it “gave” them the rights of an individual, but more so restricted them TO the rights of an individual. I guess it is all in how you look at it. It does allow them the right to do things thus far NOT allowed (such as freedom of speech, lobbying for political elections, etc…. although unofficial lobbying has ALWAYS been done by businesses, it was just not a protected right) because those are covered by individual rights, but it also holds them to much more stringent standards than they had been held to before that time.

Before that time corporations were actually given MORE rights in property than individual people, allowing some pretty shady stuff to go on. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was a great “equalizer” for the system. By making corporations accountable, and in fact held to the SAME standards and having the SAME rights as individuals, it not only protects them, but BINDS them to the same standards.

Before this time, things were pretty much up to individual judges making rulings according to what pressures were brought to bear at the time. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad relieves judges of this burden and levels the playing field for those involved in any disputes since the same rules now apply to all parties.

However this ruling also brings up some interesting issues involving ownership of persons. As quoted from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism:

“The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.”

An interesting argument and point of discussion to say the least. But that would, of course, be another issue to that of actual Rights. But if you are using this for a school assignment, I would suggest tossing that monkey wrench in…..

(Yes, I can be evil.) :D

So, although the later ruling may indeed be broader, it would not be the first. And I would call it more of a defining ruling than one appointing corporations the rights of persons, since that had already been done in 1886, 6 years earlier.

[ShooterJM]

Good point! I havent' taken any law classes in a long time and couldn't remember if santa clara was used as precendent or not. One of the two wasn't actually used as a decision, I think it was like in the opening statement by the judge. You have a good memory man! I'm impressed!

[pbstu]

ya thanks shartley, thats a good memory you have, its not for school, i had read about it awhile back and just wanted a refresher.



stu.