Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 28 Share on Facebook 5 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (34 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Ending the criminal insanity of the concept of corporations as people

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 5   Must Read 4   News 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 12/1/13

- Advertisement -

Reprinted from by  Meteor Blades

(image by Lucas O'Connor)   DMCA
attribution: Lucas O'Connor

The Supreme Court's announcement that it will rule on whether secular corporations can deny health insurance coverage of birth control for its female employees got proper attention from Joan McCarter  here  and Adam B  here  Tuesday. Anyone who isn't worried about how the Court may rule hasn't been paying attention.

One of my favorite writers for decades has been Harold Meyerson. He's hit the bullseye on the birth control cases with his latest:

- Advertisement -

Individual believers and non-believers draw their own lines on all kinds of moral issues every day. That's human nature. They are free to say that their lines adhere to or are close to specific religious doctrines. But to extend the exemptions that churches receive to secular, for-profit corporations that claim to be following religious doctrine, but may in fact be nipping it here and tucking it there, would open the door to a range of idiosyncratic management practices inflicted on employees. For that matter, some religions have doctrines that, followed faithfully, could result in bizarre and discriminatory management practices.

The Supreme Court has not frequently ruled that religious belief creates an exemption from following the law. On the contrary, in a 1990 majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that Native Americans fired for smoking peyote as part of a religious ceremony had no right to reinstatement. It "would be courting anarchy," Scalia wrote in Employment Division v. Smith, to allow them to violate the law just because they were "religious objectors" to it. "An individual's religious beliefs," he continued, cannot "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law."

It will be interesting to see whether Scalia still believes that now that he's being confronted with a case where the religious beliefs in question may be closer to his own.

The other issue all this raises: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Under the law, corporations and humans have long had different standards of responsibility. If corporations are treated as people, so that they are free to spend money in election campaigns and to invoke their religious beliefs to deny a kind of health coverage to their workers, are they to be treated as people in other regards? Corporations are legal entities whose owners are not personally liable for the company's debts, whereas actual people are liable for their own. Both people and corporations can discharge their debts through bankruptcy, but there are several kinds of bankruptcy, and the conditions placed on people are generally far more onerous than those placed on corporations. If corporations are people, why aren't they subject to the same bankruptcy laws that people are? Why aren't the owners liable for corporate debts as people are for their own?

Scalia, of course, does not let consistency get in the way of his ideology, so his vote on the birth control cases is hardly predictable.

As Meyerson (and so many of the rest of us) says, corporations are obviously not people. Unfortunately, the corporadoes and their marionettes in government and media have managed to mangle the law partway into a contrary perspective that is doing and poised to do grave damage to us flesh-and-blood people. That perversion of legal sanity needs to be crushed. By statute or constitutional amendment if that is what it takes.

Meanwhile, however, if corporations are going to be viewed as people in the rights department, then let them be people elsewise, too. No special protections, for example, from the death penalty. When their crimes warrant such punishment the way an actual individual's would, end their existence by tearing up their charter and turning them into non-entities.

- Advertisement -


articles reprinted from

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Rush Limbaugh's Sponsor List

Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package. ACTION NEEDED

Ron Paul takes lead In Iowa, Newt Gingrich falls off cliff

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

The Bundy Ranch flashpoint, one Nevadan's perspective

Meet Foster Friess, Billionaire who Bought Iowa for Santorum


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

There is no legal doctrine that corporations are p... by George Flower on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:51:24 PM
Romney and others like him sure think that Corpora... by Michael Dewey on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:09:50 AM
IF corporations are people or even enjoy the same ... by mrk * on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:08:42 AM
I vote YES on this proposal.... by Daniel Penisten on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:27:21 PM