This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
PETA Says SeaWorld Keeps Slaves
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Let me elaborate: I was unaware that non-humans were protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Corporations
are
considered "persons" under American Law, which grants them Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment1 (granting to them "equal protection of the laws," meaning the Bill of Rights applies to Microsoft just as equally as to John Q. Public). The reasoning behind the various Supreme Court decisions2 has more or less been rooted in the fact that the term "person" (specifically
artificial person
) had always been used to describe business entities, and therefore since the 14th Amendment does not
specifically exclude
those entities from its definition of "person" -- that the 14th Amendment does indeed apply to corporate charters (so the argument goes, if the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended to exclude business entities, they would have said "natural persons" in its text).
Whether or not I agree with PETA, I'm glad that someone is throwing a crazy test case out there which could invalidate the (equally crazy) rulings on Corporate personhood. It's sort of like the gay rights groups who introduced a law that all marriages would be legally annulled after two years if children were not produced in that time (they did this in order for it to be struck down as unconstitutional, to create a legal precedent that childbirth is not a foundation for legal marriage).
I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court is gonna strike this one down. Hard.
Let's hope so, and let's hope they take Corporations out of recognition along with Whales. I wouldn't be so sure though, Whales don't donate cash to candidates or political parties.
1 - Relevent text of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2 - Here's a couple examples establishing and/or upholding corporate personhood:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. _ (2010)
There are more out there,
Wikipedia has a nice article
on the subject.
I also recommend a book called
Unequal Protection
by Thom Hartmann (the author has also put this book up online with unlimited free access, at
truthout.org/thom-hartmann-unequal-protection
).
Post by
pezz
The official government agency where PETA sends the information.
Notice that the euthanization figure (2981 for 2006) matches the site I linked earlier.
And I'm not saying euthanizing animals has no place. I'm saying it's hypocritical to A) complain that animals are killed for meat when you're killing them for nothing, and B) to kill animals while trying to campaign to give them 'human' rights.
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh yeah Heckler, there was a book by MIT economists about how the only legal obligation for corporations is to provide for their shareholders, which they said is not a fundamental principle and could be rewritten so that corporations are responsible to stakeholders in the company... Off topic, but have you heard of it?
Post by
Heckler
Oh yeah Heckler, there was a book by MIT economists about how the only legal obligation for corporations is to provide for their shareholders, which they said is not a fundamental principle and could be rewritten so that corporations are responsible to stakeholders in the company... Off topic, but have you heard of it?
No I definitely haven't read that, if you could find a link I would be interested.
Off the cuff, I think the problem with a fundamental redefinition of corporate legal obligation is that there is a lot of research and/or strong opinion that says a corporation
automatically
does best for everyone-and-everything when it does best for its shareholders (not that I agree with that). I think it would be easier (politically) to amend the 14th Amendment to say "natural persons" (easier does not mean easy though).
Post by
gamerunknown
Well the video where the book was brought up talked about how, often, a corporation's employees, local environment and community along with the future generations living in that community are not considered when legislating what a corporation is permitted to do. Those segments could all be considered stakeholders. The title of the book wasn't mentioned though, all I could find was one by "R Freeman" in 1984 (not the MIT economist referred to).
Post by
MyTie
I know whales are mammals, but PETA were the ones who wanted to rename fish as
sea kittens
. Can we really take this seriously?
That being said, Funden, the citizenship status isn't an issue - you're not allowed to hold non-US citizens as slaves either.
Let me elaborate: I was unaware that non-humans were protected under the U.S. Constitution.
That's one of their points I believe, that since they aren't explicitly excluded by the Constitution, they are implicitly included.
Should deer get due process before a hunter executes them?
Post by
Heckler
Well the video where the book was brought up talked about how, often, a corporation's employees, local environment and community along with the future generations living in that community are not considered when legislating what a corporation is permitted to do. Those segments could all be considered stakeholders. The title of the book wasn't mentioned though, all I could find was one by "R Freeman" in 1984 (not the MIT economist referred to).
I'll keep looking, I would be interested in knowing more about it. A broad definition of "stakeholder" could include a lot of things; so it would be really easy to spin that sort of regulation as overreach. And since in this case, the Right Wing spin machine would be manufacturing said Spin, I really don't think the idea would go anywhere (additionally, corporate regulations are state-by-state I believe... so nothing would stop the corporations from simply jumping to a new state, unless the regulations were made federal -- and federal regulation is automatically unpopular in nearly all cases, especially when the Right Wing is against it, which they nearly always are... except Abortion, and Gay marriage, and a few others. But no need to get into that here).
But, there's is a lot I don't know about the topic in general, so I would like to find this book or one like it. I just finished my current book and now I'm going to be bored on the bus.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sweetscot
I keep my cat as a slave. What are you going to do about it?
Post by
Pwntiff
No, your cat keeps you as staff.
Post by
Monday
No, your cat keeps you as staff.
^
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Firallon
Should deer get due process before a hunter executes them?
Yes. Along with miles of red tape and years of appeals. All for some meat to stick in the freezer. And they apparently should be able to bear arms. On second thought, that would make the sport of big game hunting more more... interesting.
Though I am curious, as its not a huge leap from the thirteenth to the second amendment, what would a grizzly bear use as a personal protection firearm?
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
My granddad is a hunter and a butcher, I think you have to go through miles of red tape to sell meat that you've shot yourself, so he mostly just takes it home.
I go to America like once every 3 years and I can't be bothered to tell him I'm a vegetarian (he has 3 frickin guns in his bedroom) and some roadkill deer sausages were the best I've ever had.
Post by
pnkflffytutu
PETA is a very good organization and I highly support it.
Look at acronym for joke
Post by
Magician22773
The 13th Amendment does not exclude plants, so it must implicitly include them.
Plants cannot perform voluntary servitude (lack of consciousness), therefore, any service they provide must be, by definition, involuntary.
Therefore, all subjugation of plant material in the US must immediately come to a halt as it is in breach of the US Constitution.
But, if they couldn't, lets say, "burn" a certain plant material, PETA would probably cease to exist as we know it.
Post by
gamerunknown
Because only stoners care about animal rights?
Post by
Sweetscot
Because only stoners care about animal rights?
Didn't make much sense to me either, thought he meant books or something.
I know plenty of people that care a great deal about animal rights, and every one of them thinks PETA is nuts. Then again many people have different views about what is and what is not good animal husbandry so combine that with people's differing views on what is and what is not crazy behavior and it isn't surprising that some people think PETA is loony :)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.