I had an epiphany...

[vy65]

Appreciate the sentiment - but your joke wasn't that funny.

I'll play devil's advocate: CC owns a ranch -- "CC Ranch." He put le to the ranch in CC Corp. for liability purposes. The state of Texas ins utes eminent domain proceedings on CC Ranch. Texas claims that, because CC Corp. isn't a person, the state has no obligation to pay CC Corp. a dime for the seizure. The state argues that the 14th amendment applies only to persons - and if corporations aren't people - there's no due process argument to be had.

Whatsayou?

[CosmicCowboy]

Appreciate the sentiment - but your joke wasn't that funny.

I'll play devil's advocate: CC owns a ranch -- "CC Ranch." He put le to the ranch in CC Corp. for liability purposes. The state of Texas ins utes eminent domain proceedings on CC Ranch. Texas claims that, because CC Corp. isn't a person, the state has no obligation to pay CC Corp. a dime for the seizure. The state argues that the 14th amendment applies only to persons - and if corporations aren't people - there's no due process argument to be had.

Whatsayou?

First, it was a joke.

Second, Corporations have been found to have the same property rights as individuals in case after case. This is nothing new...

Third, I was playfully referring to the recent Citizens United decision...which gets into the whole campaign finance issue....and PERSONALLY I wish ALL corporate donations and PACS's were illegal.

[vy65]

Second, Corporations have been found to have the same property rights as individuals in case after case. This is nothing new...

That's the point. They have property rights because they're treated as "persons" for 14th amendment purposes. Thus, they lose those rights when they're no longer a "person" under the 14th amendment.

Third, I was playfully referring to the recent Citizens United decision...which gets into the whole campaign finance issue....and PERSONALLY I wish ALL corporate donations and PACS's were illegal.

Citizens United dealt with restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. It's irrelevant to the hypothetical.

[CosmicCowboy]

First, it was a joke.

sheesh

[Drachen]

Apparently the point is that you can't win CC. It seems that since you made that one thread, people see blood in the water and are circling. You can't even make a joke in the other forums without some crazies getting all bent out of shape.

[vy65]

Apparently the point is that you can't win CC. It seems that since you made that one thread, people see blood in the water and are circling. You can't even make a joke in the other forums without some crazies getting all bent out of shape.

So we're not allowed to press the issue because CC made a joke?

[vy65]

And what blood in the water? I was defending corporate personhood - do you think that's a popular position on this board?

[Wild Cobra]

SCOTUS finds them to be persons as listed under the 14th amendment currently. The key is getting rid of the LL in LLC.

Now that, I will agree with you on.

[ElNono]

Here's a question for vy (or anybody else). How come that when there's certain criminal activity the corp-as-person facade disappears?

Under the premise presented here, Madoff investments or whatever the heck his investment company was called should've been the guilty 'person'. But the corp moved out of the way and the liability fell right on him.

Thoughts?