Corporation and personhood

[Neo-Logic]

A Supreme Court decision is the law.

Court can't really make law, only enforce. Their decision has the effect of law, but is not in it of itself, law. They either overturn Congress if their actions in complaint are found unconstitutional, or they rule in favor of Congress.

 

[Neo-Logic]

The corporate interest is always going to be centered around the increase of profits. Unlike personal interest, which sometimes will put human interest above profits.

Human interest is based in self-interest. For every action you can think a human being performing, you can link and present some sort of logical self-interest based independent variable that arguably is a causal factor. Not so different from corporations in that regards.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Something just occurred to me: if a corporation was legally a person, then wouldn't a merger be considered an act of murder? After all, it would be a deliberate act in which a "person" is destroyed.

No.

Mergers would be like marriages, which is why they usually require approval from Mom & Dad (Securities Exchange Commission) in many instances, and a big crowd of people to help them celebrate (Lawyers). And the two sides of the family really hate each other.

Hostile take overs are more like your girlfriend moving into your place, then when you come back home from work, all your furniture has been replaced by hers, decorations excessively pink, and the clothes she doesn't like thrown out.

 

[Rain Drops]

Court can't really make law, only enforce.

Sorry, but that is not correct.

It's called 'Common law'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law

 

[Neo-Logic]

Sorry, but that is not correct.

It's called 'Common law'.

Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

You misunderstand what wikipedia is saying, which is not your fault because it doesn't say enough of the right thing and too much of the wrong things when it comes to certain topics.

"They also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[15]" - from the link you cite.

Your source is referring to stare decisis - which is judges choosing to uphold precedent. That only influences the jurisprudence of future judges and future court case considerations. Supreme Court and all courts in US do not make 'law'. That is the province of the Legislature. The courts can only enforce existing laws. That is and has been the central component of our separation of powers as the Constitution outlines specifically and explicitly. The province of the court is to review law, find it unconstitutional if it doesn't fit in with the general tenor and spirit of the instrument, but they have no capacity to make law because only representative bodies (Congress/Senate) has that power.

But in reality, I guess your thought is correct in the sense that their actions and judgment has the effect of law, but not in the sense of 'making' law since they cannot originate any original ideas of governance, but only stop, allow, or prohibit certain actions from existing legislations which have been brought to them by a party seeking redress of grievances.
Wikipedia is misleading, especially when it comes to potentially confusing lines of thinking like jurisprudence and intricacies of legal systems.

 

[Mathematician]

The Supreme Court would determine if the nature of corporations are considered under the Constitution.

In other words, did the whole personhood concept and the rights of individuals applicable to corporations come about through Supreme Court decisions or an act of Congress. I believe it was the former.

Good catch, though.

You'd have to look outside of Congress and the Supreme Court. Corporate legislation was originally decided on by the state legislators. Only after the Civil War when the Southern economy lost its base of independent agriculturists and disenfranchised slaves did the issue become a national one. Up until Reconstruction the Supreme Court's only remarkable intervention was to prevent the state of New York from granting a virtual monopoly of fishing authority to one organization which would have impacted the economies of neighboring states.

 

[yossarian22]

Something just occurred to me: if a corporation was legally a person, then wouldn't a merger be considered an act of murder? After all, it would be a deliberate act in which a "person" is destroyed.

Except corporations are not "legally a person" (whatever that means) just because we have a concept that some imbecile decided to call corporate personhood.