Personness of Corporations

Proposition: Rights of persons are exogenous to any constitution and hence some rights can be inalienable; rights of corporations are derived from the legal system within which they are incorporated and hence corporations can not have inalienable rights.

The idea of corporations as persons has risen to the fore due to Citizens United vs. Federal Eelction Commision. The central point in the case is whether the government can restrict free speech of corporations (in this particular case unlimited spending in an election). The supreme court decided in favor of Citizens United, that (a) as corporations are a manifestation of persons constituting them, hence their freedom of speech can not be restricted, and (b) "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

My view of rights echo the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...". Hence, in this hierarchy at the top is the creator, next are person or persons who then come together to make a grand compromise in the form of a constitution.

In this view the constitution does not grant people any rights but only take away rights for the sake of a functioning society. Hence freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution, but the constituion concents to the fact that people would not have to give up their freedom of speech (which is inherently their's) in order to live in the territories in which the constituion is effective.

In this hierarchy, corporations come below the constitution or the legal framework. An entity like the NRA which is an adovocacy group could exist without a constitution, however not so for Citi Group. Hence Citit Group can not have inelienable rights, the individuals forming Citi Group will still have their individual freedoms (individually or as organizations which are not incroporated). However, if they are dependent on the legal system ofr the existence of their organization then they are at the mercy of the legal system.

Of course in practice if the system is too restrictive (say like North Korea or Burma) then industries would not find that too appealing a business environment. So there's some trade-off with regards to what rights a corporation can have. But for me the main point is that the government can restrict rights of corporations.

The second point is more nebulous. Of course the courts recognize the need to restrict speech, for example shouting fire in a crowded place. As someone said, the constitution is not a death wish. But who decides? It may be obvious to many that allowing corporations a free hand in an election is a death wish for democracy. The exact text of the first amendment is obviously flawed or incomplete and hence this rigorous application is simply foolish.