Doesn't matter, judges have no obligatons to be just or fair. They just have to interpret the written law and precedent law as well as legislate themselves by way of precedent. Justice means to correct wrong and make it right. The law is written such that judges can apply their interpretation of it with no obligation towards reason or implied rights and wrongs by the legislature.
Take asset forfeiture for example, there is no law that permits it explicitly but there are laws about property rights,due process and privacy. By precedent and in ignorance of what common sense tells a reasonable person "this is unfair" they steal property from people without due process.
The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical.
It is all merely theatrics to veil implementations of hidden agendas and ulterior motives.
> The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical.
I've never gotten why people are so opposed to the idea of corporations being treated as unnatural persons for certain purposes.
Companies are owned and operated by people with rights, so some of those rights transfer to the company. But, the owners agree to have some of their rights qualified when acting through a corporation in exchange for enjoying limited liability.
For instance, imagine you own a house under your own name. The government can't build a stadium on top of it without just compensation. Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation?
Corporations were a relatively recent invention in the context of the common law and treating them as qualified unnatural persons allowed them to integrate into the legal system without creating an entire parallel system. As a developer, I find it a pretty cute retrofit to the model.
> I've never gotten why people are so opposed to the idea of corporations being treated as unnatural persons for certain purposes.
When people talk about corporate personhood, they're almost certainly talking about Citizens United v. FEC which allows corporations to make unlimited donations to politicians because it's 'free speech' - a decision that opens the door to unchecked bribery.
They oppose this because they don't want their politicians to accept bribes.
For the first part, that is an oath, may I ask if any judge has ever been prosecuted for being just and this breaking the law? Which law?
For the second, it is not a question of opposition. It is not reasonable or logical no matter the mental gymnasics and legal bullshit you legalists try to apply to it (you are so deep in legality you have forgotten reason). There is no such thing as an unnatural person. A corporation is an entity with specific defintions. The reason behind this mental gymnastics is precisely what you noted: rights. But if you follow logic and reason companies have absolutley no rights whatsoever, only obligations and privileges that allow them to participate in commerce. However, stipulatig that somehow they are partially persons because people operate them and they derive those people's rights allows them to argue against their obligations because of inerited rights. This is what I meant by a veil of theatrics to acheive your underlying goal.
Under a government of the people,for the people and by the people, the people's understand of what could reasonably be considered a person trumps every other argument. A reasonable person would not consider walmart or cpac a person or to have rights of a person because people operate it. Companies were around long before the USA was a country and this stipulation was never made before because it is hilariously illogical.
If you want corporations to have specific privileges, legislate that as such, meaning unlike rights they are not irrevocable by the government and contingent on the fulfillment of their obligations.
Take a billboard paid for by a company for example, the company has no rights to free speech. However the individuals that run it can run the billboard as individuals on behalf of the company, accepting responsibility as individuals under law (typically the CEO would).
> Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation?
It is different because you chose to make it different and relinquished any rights of ownership as an individual. You now should pay corporate taxes and nullification of your incorporation means the government gets your house. If you don't like that, buy it as a person. Thank you for bringing this up, do you know about the home ownership, housing price and homeless catastrophe that is unflolding? This is the cause. Corporations are buying houses left and right and taking advantage of home owner rights to do so. A city should be able to ban corporate owned housing but since they are persons that is impossible unless done at the federal level and even then it must pass a supreme court challenge. As a result corporations enjoy personhood rights more than most americans.
When you forgot reason, you tolerated corruption at the foundation of the whole system.
Take asset forfeiture for example, there is no law that permits it explicitly but there are laws about property rights,due process and privacy. By precedent and in ignorance of what common sense tells a reasonable person "this is unfair" they steal property from people without due process.
The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical.
It is all merely theatrics to veil implementations of hidden agendas and ulterior motives.