Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Researcher)

In cases where you feel "I rather prefer the system in place now" why not just delete the section? That's what I did. Although, that leaves you not making any commentary... human 21:21, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't want to take up the whole talk page of someone else's essay, so I just put all my thoughts together in this version. Researcher 21:22, 26 December 2007 (EST)

That make sense. human 21:25, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Full disagreement on the corporate personhood. Lemme spell it plainly - Google is not a person. Comcast is not a person. Capcom is not a person. Facebook is not a person. Twitter is not a person. If you worry about a shareholder losing their home if a corporation goes under, well, the free mark wouldn't care. Serocco (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not natural persons, but they are persons. It is necessary for corporations to be legal persons so that they can sue and be sued, pay taxes, enter contracts, etc. Many countries have a corporate person as the monarch, such as the United Kingdom (The Crown is a corporate person who owns the state, the Queen is The Crown's chief executive). The idea that constitutional rights apply to corporations is new, but the idea of corporate persons is not. Hannasanarion (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)