LA Calls For Constitutional Amendment

[the_std]

Los Angeles becomes the first major city in the US to call for an amendment to the constitution that would guarantee constitutional rights only to living human beings, with the aim of removing those freedoms from corporations. You can watch a video about it here.

Now, I really don't know too much about how the constitution protects corporations, but my question about this would be - if the constitution no longer applies, what regulations will corporations face? My guess would be that the governing bodies of the businesses these corporations are a part of would have to step in and get a lot more strict about what corporations can and cannot do. However, without doing a lot more research, I can't say whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing for your country. I just thought it was interesting, and it most likely came from the same roots as the Occupy movement.

[Hyena Dandy]

Its ridiculous that we need an amendment for this.

Here's my question, though. How much is a corporation its own entity, and how much is it a collection of people?

I'd be specifically worried about free speech. You'd be able to ban a corporation from exercising free speech, in other words. It would allow much more effective censorship, so I don't like the sound of it.

Also, LA is probably the first major city ever to call for an amendment of the Constitution. I don't think cities usually do that.

[Panacea]

The Founding Fathers had a health distrust of corporations. Unfortunately, since none of the colonies actually had any at the time, it didn't occur to them to implement more specific protections.

The recent Supreme Court decision on the issue of corporate money in politics was a horrendous decision. John Roberts and Sam Alito should be ashamed for their stance on this, especially Roberts who is supposedly a "constitutional scholar."

The whole Boston Tea Party was a protest against corporate interests in politics (the East India Tea Company, specifically).

However, such an amendment will never be proposed much less pass. Corporate lobbyists would never permit it.

[jackfaire]

Who would be accountable?

Right now you can sue a corporation.

If the corporation isn't recognized as an individual could you still sue them?

If I formed a corporation I personally am not responsible for that companies actions as long as the illegal action is taken by the company and not myself.

The debts of that corporation would not be my responsibility so I guess. I mean how would it change things?

Would the person who founded the corporation be solely responsible? Would no corporation be allowed to exist after the death of their founder?

[Panacea]

The thing with corporations is they are responsible for the crimes committed by the corporation, not individuals, and individuals are not responsible through their own personal funds for the debt problems of the corporation.

So you can sue a corporation if it goes bankrupt and try to recover losses through the bankruptcy proceeding, but if you are a small fish on the creditors list then you might get nothing, and you can't go after the officers of the corporation even if they're swimming in money.

Corporate officers CAN be held criminally and civilly for any individual acts that break the law through the corporation, though. This is why Ken Lay went to jail for Enron. It's also really hard to prove through our complicated legal code, which is why no one has gone to jail for the recent Wall Street debacles yet.

[Tanasi]

Corporations became "legal" entities via the tax code. Due to lawsuits and judicial rulings corporations are almost considered persons with rights. I don't oppose this action as long as all corporations are going to be treated the same.
The corporate veil can be pierced by a judge if it is determined the corporate officers knowingly raided the corp for personal gain. In other words the officers took everything of value from the corp for their own use or compensation and left the corp with nothing of value.
Usually this has to be a very blatent violation before a judge would even consider this.
Pan, I really doubt anyone of any significance will every go to jail over the Wall Street debacles. I say this because Wall Street guys are being covered by both Democrats and Republicans with our beloved President being the biggest beneficiary. Personally I'd like to clean out all elected Federal officials and start over and this time with no pensions and term limits, in addition to some other things.

[Greenday]

Who would be accountable?

Right now you can sue a corporation.

If the corporation isn't recognized as an individual could you still sue them?

The owner of the company. It is their responsibility to make sure everything going on is legal. Just like if something happens at your house, it's your responsibility.

[bara]

I agree with Greenday on this one. Whoever is in charge of the company is at fault. CEOs, board of directors, whoever is actually the 'boss'.

These greedy a-holes shouldnt be able to hide behind a corporate law loophole to get out of taking responsibility for thier own failure and illegal deads.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm also really confused about what they're trying to accomplish with L.A. calling for a change to the Constitution. They're just one city. If California in general called for it, it would make sense, but that's something cities don't get the right to do.

The owner of the company. It is their responsibility to make sure everything going on is legal. Just like if something happens at your house, it's your responsibility.

In large things, yes. I totally agree. I think that the people should be held responsible for their actions. But only when its THEIR actions. As it is, you can sue the company for illegal deeds or harm that comes to you from employees on duty as well as if the company as a whole screws you over. So what about things like that?

[Boozy]

I'm also really confused about what they're trying to accomplish with L.A. calling for a change to the Constitution. They're just one city. If California in general called for it, it would make sense, but that's something cities don't get the right to do.

What do you mean they don't have a right to ask for something? Is that not (supposedly) the basis of your entire republic? Can't any one person or group, large or small, important or insignificant, speak their mind and call for change in the government?

This is just an endorsement. They haven't actually amended the constitution themselves. They're just putting their weight behind it.

[Hyena Dandy]

What do you mean they don't have a right to ask for something? Is that not (supposedly) the basis of your entire republic? Can't any one person or group, large or small, important or insignificant, speak their mind and call for change in the government?

The way this whole thing is phrased it seems like they're saying that this will accomplish something. It won't. This isn't their job. I think that a city council should be focusing on doing stuff that actually have some effect on the citizens of their city. Not on pointless showmanship. I really don't like these 'symbolic' votes. They're a waste of time and resources on something that won't get anything done.

[kamn]

Can the company not sure right now, a (former) employee for damages done to the company? If he is smoking inside in a McD, and gets found by a health inspector, who then fines the McD, cant the bosses fire and then sue the ass that was smoking for damages done?

[linguist]

The way this whole thing is phrased it seems like they're saying that this will accomplish something. It won't.

the fact that we're discussing it now shows that it has accomplished something. it's raised awareness, and sometimes that's all that's needed to begin the process of making real change.

[Hyena Dandy]

the fact that we're discussing it now shows that it has accomplished something. it's raised awareness, and sometimes that's all that's needed to begin the process of making real change.

Did any of us here not know about Corporate Personhood, and if we did, did any of us think it was a good idea?

Mostly I think we are discussing whether or not this is helping the cause we already agree with, and I am discussing whether or not they should have done this in the first place.

[Duelist925]

Did any of us here not know about Corporate Personhood, and if we did, did any of us think it was a good idea?

Mostly I think we are discussing whether or not this is helping the cause we already agree with, and I am discussing whether or not they should have done this in the first place.

We did--but then we are savvy and intelligent internet commenters. *puts on monocle* I say.

But more seriously, I think this might be a good thing. It might spread Public awareness of the issue, and there's a slim chance it might be the pebble that starts an avalanche, if enough other cities, or even a state, steps up to agree with them. (I dont consider it very Likely, but its possible)