Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[Ken]

What is the legal end game here? Is it to have animals legally recognized as persons? Is it just to get the whole concept of persons so scrambled that it becomes meaningless?

It's a little wacky, isn't it? I don't think the courts could demonstrate how such a right meets the criteria set out by the leaked draft.

Well, we already have accepted the bizarre notion that corporations are people. Why not animals?

The end-game isn't about defining these things as "humans" The end game is about recognizing that these different non-human entities (corporations, wildlife, etc.) have interests that merit defending in court. Legally the term "person" is different from the term "human"

To my mind "person" should just remain synonymous with "human." Otherwise it would lead to legal absurdities. "We the people" would suddenly include animals. Animals would suddenly qualify for voting rights, etc. ...

Whatever people argue about rudimentary capacities to "think" and of self-awareness animals might have, they don't have full capacities and it's highly unlikeky they ever will.

I'm all for animals' rights but I prefer not to muddle our language and therefore our perceptions of reality over it.

I agree frankly. I think it is absurd to treat both corporations and animals as people when it comes to rights. Only actual human people should have rights. Unless the law actually gives them rights directly. Like, for example, freedom of the press. Or the endangered species act.

[Josh]

I agree frankly. I think it is absurd to treat both corporations and animals as people when it comes to rights. Only actual human people should have rights. Unless the law actually gives them rights directly. Like, for example, freedom of the press. Or the endangered species act.

Ken, you are being intellectually dishonest when you make claims that the concept of legal personality means "corporations are people". Legal personhood simply means that it is an entity that can own property, and more importantly, be sued in a court of law. An entity that can be sued also has certain rights, like the right to a trial, to representation, and so forth.

Ken, are you taking a position that there should not be legal personhood for LLCs? (I would find such a position very interesting and in fact hold to such a position myself.) But you need to be honest about what you are actually advocating for, instead of conflating legal personality with whether or not a little baby should be dismembered and ripped to pieces just because it wasn't born yet.

[Ken]

I agree frankly. I think it is absurd to treat both corporations and animals as people when it comes to rights. Only actual human people should have rights. Unless the law actually gives them rights directly. Like, for example, freedom of the press. Or the endangered species act.

Ken, you are being intellectually dishonest when you make claims that the concept of legal personality means "corporations are people". Legal personhood simply means that it is an entity that can own property, and more importantly, be sued in a court of law. An entity that can be sued also has certain rights, like the right to a trial, to representation, and so forth.

Ken, are you taking a position that there should not be legal personhood for LLCs? (I would find such a position very interesting and in fact hold to such a position myself.) But you need to be honest about what you are actually advocating for, instead of conflating legal personality with whether or not a little baby should be dismembered and ripped to pieces just because it wasn't born yet.

That is what the courts ruled in the Hobby Lobby case when they extended religious rights to for-profit corporations. And in the Citizens United case when they ruled that corporations had free speech rights to engage in political spending.

The purpose of corporations is to shield the owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. And to manage the capital and property of the corporation collectively. So I am skeptical when the rights of personhood are extended to corporations that go beyond that general purpose. I don't think corporations have souls, and therefore, don't have religious rights. I don't think Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. will have a retail branch in heaven. I also don't think they or any other corporation has a constitutional free speech right to meddle in elections.

I wasn't making an argument about abortion. I was arguing that neither corporations nor animals should be granted general constitutional rights of personhood beyond what we might decide to grant through specific laws.

[Josh]

That is what the courts ruled in the Hobby Lobby case when they extended religious rights to for-profit corporations. And in the Citizens United case when they ruled that corporations had free speech rights to engage in political spending.

The courts ruled that the bill of rights apply to all legal personalities, which is not a new or novel ruling.

The purpose of corporations is to shield the owners from liability for the actions of the corporation.

That's not the purpose of a "corporation". That is, however, the purpose of a "limited liability company" (which is not a corporation), or other entities such as "limited liability partnership".

And to manage the capital and property of the corporation collectively. So I am skeptical when the rights of personhood are extended to corporations that go beyond that general purpose.

Yet the owners of corporations or companies do have rights, and collectively can assert them as they manage their company (or pay someone else to manage it for them).

More importantly, many other types of entities have legal personality as well. A deceased person's estate has a legal personality - it can sue and it can be sued, for example. It also has rights.

I don't think corporations have souls, and therefore, don't have religious rights.

Do owners of corporations have religious rights?

I don't think Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. will have a retail branch in heaven.

Yet the owners of that company probably do hope to be in heaven, and believe they are accountable for their actions here on earth.

I am partner in a LLC and a partner in a straight partnership. I don't think the actions of those businesses are something I will not be held accountable for. I would, for example, not tolerate being an owner of a business that engages in paying for abortions (which was the original dispute with Hobby Lobby). I find it rather disturbing that you seem to think I should be forced to do so.

I also don't think they or any other corporation has a constitutional free speech right to meddle in elections.

So who do you think should get to decide what speech a corporation (which is just something that a collection of natural persons get together to do) should be allowed to speak?

I wasn't making an argument about abortion. I was arguing that neither corporations nor animals should be granted general constitutional rights of personhood beyond what we might decide to grant through specific laws.

I have noticed that you don't generally believe conservative people should really have any rights to things like free speech or religious freedom at all, or liberty not to be forced to take vaccines, and so on. Might I suggest that you try migrating to Russia? The conditions there will be much more like what you seem to think good government is.

[Ken]

That is what the courts ruled in the Hobby Lobby case when they extended religious rights to for-profit corporations. And in the Citizens United case when they ruled that corporations had free speech rights to engage in political spending.

The courts ruled that the bill of rights apply to all legal personalities, which is not a new or novel ruling.

The purpose of corporations is to shield the owners from liability for the actions of the corporation.

That's not the purpose of a "corporation". That is, however, the purpose of a "limited liability company" (which is not a corporation), or other entities such as "limited liability partnership".

And to manage the capital and property of the corporation collectively. So I am skeptical when the rights of personhood are extended to corporations that go beyond that general purpose.

Yet the owners of corporations or companies do have rights, and collectively can assert them as they manage their company (or pay someone else to manage it for them).

More importantly, many other types of entities have legal personality as well. A deceased person's estate has a legal personality - it can sue and it can be sued, for example. It also has rights.

I don't think corporations have souls, and therefore, don't have religious rights.

Do owners of corporations have religious rights?

I don't think Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. will have a retail branch in heaven.

Yet the owners of that company probably do hope to be in heaven, and believe they are accountable for their actions here on earth.

I am partner in a LLC and a partner in a straight partnership. I don't think the actions of those businesses are something I will not be held accountable for. I would, for example, not tolerate being an owner of a business that engages in paying for abortions (which was the original dispute with Hobby Lobby). I find it rather disturbing that you seem to think I should be forced to do so.

I also don't think they or any other corporation has a constitutional free speech right to meddle in elections.

So who do you think should get to decide what speech a corporation (which is just something that a collection of natural persons get together to do) should be allowed to speak?

I wasn't making an argument about abortion. I was arguing that neither corporations nor animals should be granted general constitutional rights of personhood beyond what we might decide to grant through specific laws.

I have noticed that you don't generally believe conservative people should really have any rights to things like free speech or religious freedom at all, or liberty not to be forced to take vaccines, and so on. Might I suggest that you try migrating to Russia? The conditions there will be much more like what you seem to think good government is.

It's very simple.

What I believe is that only human PEOPLE have inherent inalienable rights.

Animals, corporations, LLCs, foundations, and other non-human legal entities might have whatever rights we choose to grant them through law. But they do not have inherent inalienable rights simply by being "persons"

Obviously the courts disagree with me.

[Josh]

Animals, corporations, LLCs, foundations, and other non-human legal entities might have whatever rights we choose to grant them through law. But they do not have inherent inalienable rights simply by being "persons"

Obviously the courts disagree with me.

You would have to come up with a completely new basis for law - legal personality has existed for a very long time for things like estates, trusts, and so forth, and those include certain legal rights.

The English system of law has for a very long time not tolerated the idea that the only rights that exist are what is granted through legislation, and then taken away through legislation. Instead our legal tradition has the idea that there are indeed more unalienable rights.

But more specifically you keep saying that corporations are "non human legal entities". This is simply not true. A corporation is a collection of natural persons who undertake a common venture. Those human owners very much do have rights.

I am not sure why you think it would be a good thing to deprive them of those rights.

[Ken]

Animals, corporations, LLCs, foundations, and other non-human legal entities might have whatever rights we choose to grant them through law. But they do not have inherent inalienable rights simply by being "persons"

Obviously the courts disagree with me.

You would have to come up with a completely new basis for law - legal personality has existed for a very long time for things like estates, trusts, and so forth, and those include certain legal rights.

The English system of law has for a very long time not tolerated the idea that the only rights that exist are what is granted through legislation, and then taken away through legislation. Instead our legal tradition has the idea that there are indeed more unalienable rights.

But more specifically you keep saying that corporations are "non human legal entities". This is simply not true. A corporation is a collection of natural persons who undertake a common venture. Those human owners very much do have rights.

I am not sure why you think it would be a good thing to deprive them of those rights.

People join together and organize for all manner of reasons. I coach my daughter's soccer team, the "Blue Jays" which is made up of a group of girls. The Blue Jays team exists on the league rosters, league standings, plays games every Saturday, and is part of a legal nonprofit entity. But the Blue Jays soccer team is not an actual person itself.

Do you believe that corporations themselves have souls (not the people who own shares, but the actual corporations) and will ascend to heaven or descend to hell when they die (or become unincorporated?

I own stock in various corporations. Actually hundreds of them as some of our retirement funds are in index funds. But I don't think the fact that I am human and own shares in corporations grants those corporations the same inalienable rights as actual humans. Any more than the fact that I own my car makes it a person too.

That doesn't mean corporations (or animals) don't have rights. Of course they do. But I happen to believe they should only have those rights that we as people choose to grant them. But I don't think either corporations or animals have God-given inalienable rights. I don't recall any mention of this in my Bible. Yours may be different.

Obviously the courts disagree with me on that point. No argument about that. I just think they are wrong.

[Josh]

People join together and organize for all manner of reasons. I coach my daughter's soccer team, the "Blue Jays" which is made up of a group of girls. The Blue Jays team exists on the league rosters, league standings, plays games every Saturday, and is part of a legal nonprofit entity. But the Blue Jays soccer team is not an actual person itself.

Yet if it opens a bank account, it has legal personality.

It also has legal personality if someone gets injured and someone decides to sue the sports league.

Or do you think that shouldn't be possible?

Do you believe that corporations themselves have souls (not the people who own shares, but the actual corporations) and will ascend to heaven or descend to hell when they die (or become unincorporated?

What a foolish question. As I stated earlier, legal personality is a longstanding legal concept. The actual people are the owners or constituents or members of the various entities in question, or heirs, for an estate, or board members and beneficiaries, for a nonprofit.

That doesn't mean corporations (or animals) don't have rights. Of course they do. But I happen to believe they should only have those rights that we as people choose to grant them. But I don't think either corporations or animals have God-given inalienable rights. I don't recall any mention of this in my Bible. Yours may be different.

Well, our society isn't built on Old Testament law (although the Talmud does describe legal partnerships and responsibilities and rights therein).

Legal personality in legal entities is actually given by statute and law. You keep complaining "should only have those rights that we as people choose to grant them". Well, Ken, the state legislatures, those who ratified the state constitutions, and the state and federal courts seem to all have decided that there should be entities with legal personality and with certain rights. You just don't like their decisions.

[nett]

Obviously the courts disagree with me on that point. No argument about that. I just think they are wrong.

Why are you even talking about this? In the Lisa Miller thread, you've made it clear that any discussion about morality is irrelevant, all that matters is what the law (in one state) says.

[Ken]

Obviously the courts disagree with me on that point. No argument about that. I just think they are wrong.

Why are you even talking about this? In the Lisa Miller thread, you've made it clear that any discussion about morality is irrelevant, all that matters is what the law (in one state) says.

Because upstream this discussion wandered into the subject of whether or not animals are legally "persons" under the law and I expressed my opinion that no, neither animals nor corporations nor other non-human entities are actual persons with inalienable rights. Only humans are. That does not mean we don't grant rights to both animals and corporations. Obviously we do. Corporate law is an enormous subject as is environmental law. But neither animals nor corporations have have inherent God-given inalienable rights like humans do. Or least in my opinion, they shouldn't.