Two seemingly unrelated issues with a common denominator

That common denominator being the Supreme Court.

In a surprising burst of common sense, the Supreme Court denied patent ability for genes to the company that discovered the BCRA1 and BCRA2 genes.  This means other companies can now develop tests to detect these mutations — and at much more reasonable cost, I’m guessing — and keeps naturally occuring DNA from being owned by a corporation.  Thankfully.  For now.

The other issue I’ve been thinking about and following is the utterly asinine and illogical decision, upheld multiple times:  corporations are people.  Most recently this utterly stupid and unreasonable decision was not only upheld, but expanded upon, by the decision to allow corporations to make unlimited campaign donations to political parties — all in the name of free speech.

Well I have a few questions about this opinion.  If a corporation is a both a person, a la Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and property as Wikipedia so succinctly elucidates, then how can  a corporation be legal?   Eh??  You say?  Well, according to the Emancipation Proclamation, and the later 13th Amendment, holding a person as property is illegal.  Therefore, buying stock in a corporation — because it is a person — should be illegal.  It’s enslavement of a person.  It’s illegal.

Ah, you say.  That’s a logical fallacy.  Is it?  I mean, if corporations are legally designated as people, and they have the legal rights of people, then the 13th amendment should apply to them as well.  Stock holders should be forced to divest their ownership, to give it back (not sell, GIVE, because they obtained it illegally) to the corporation, and the company can then divest itself of shares.  If it’s a person, it can’t sell itself, nor can it be purchased (prostitution aside, which is illegal in every state but Nevada).  And what about the corporation’s free will?  Who gets to determine that?  If it’s a person, it can’t be owned, therefore the owners should not be making the decisions.  Corporations, because they are people, should have the right to self determination!

I really hope this idea takes off.  Much better minds than mine could take this and run with it.  Maybe it could even end up in the Supreme Court.  Maybe.  One can always hope.

2 responses

  1. I grinned when you explained that 🙂

    But corporations are only people when it suits them. Try to hold one accountable for theft or murder, for instance, and at best you can expect some ceo to get thrown under the bus.

    • See, that’s the problem. People are either people, and held to the standards of people, and accountable to the laws and punishments of people, or they are not. They cannot be property as well, not since the 13th Amendment.

      Corporations should be held to the same standard if they are going to claim privileges only afforded to people. Either they *are* people or they are not. They CANNOT be both people and property. The two are incompatible in this country.

      I would like to point out the major problem lies in the original Supreme Court decision saying corporations are people — when the decision was handed down, slavery *was* still legal and therefore it was no conflict having a corporation be both a person and property. The decision cannot stand up to even a cursory inspection based on the changes to the Constitution and the law of the land after the Civil War.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s