by Deb Cupples | The corporate-personhood debate is raging, and it's silly. Like most third-year law students, all U.S. Supreme Court Justices know better. Apparently, they cannot resist grabbing some spotlight while engaging in bizarre verbal gymnastics.
Corporations don't even exist on the physical plane, which is why
law professors call corporations a "legal fiction." Corporations can't
even physically do anything, like drive a car or eat a sandwich. The only thing a corporation can do is what human beings do in a corporation's name.
Corporations exist only because some legal documents say that they do -- kind of like Santa Clause's existing because parents say that he does.
Robots are closer to human beings than corporations are. Should robots have all the same constitutional rights that human beings have?
Fact: the people who own, run or work for corporations already have their (personal) Constitutional rights, precisely because they are people. Giving extra rights to corporations would be grossly unfair, as it would give the people who own, run, and work for corporations access to more rights than the rest of us have.
For example, most adult American people have a constitutional right to vote. If corporations are given the right to vote, then some of the people who own, run, or work for corporations (i.e., the ones who would cast a corporations' ballots) would get to vote more than once.
A New York Times editorial states: