Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch didn't invent "corporate personhood," the shorthand term used to describe the ludicrous decisions by U.S. Supreme Courts to sanctify corporate entities with inalienable constitutional rights intended exclusively for human beings.
As a federal judge, however, Gorsuch contributed to its expansion by applying it in creatively delusional ways in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby1. That 2014 case established that a "closely held"2 for-profit corporation, apart from the human beings connected to it, possesses religious rights.
Corporations were originally subordinate to We the People
Supreme Court Justices began more than a century ago twisting existing constitutional doctrines into a pretzel to justify with straight faces that, indeed, legal documents issued by the federal and individual state governments possessed constitutional rights.
As followers of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD) are well aware, corporate entities were not intended originally at the nation's founding to possess inalienable constitutional rights. They were granted charters, or licenses, one at a time by We the People via legislatures that precisely defined their actions. These included, among many others, limited charter durations and purposes, limits on the amount of land ownership, and stipulations of who could be corporate directors
Corporate charters were deemed to be democratic tools wielded to ensure public authority and control over subordinate corporate creations by the public. The corporate charter conferred "privileges," not "rights." Corporations were designed to be publicly accountable. If a corporation violated the democratically determined terms of its charter, state legislators or courts often revoked its charter with its assets distributed to those negatively impacted.
In a 1900 ruling to revoke the charter of a dairy corporation, the Ohio Supreme Court stated: