[otterdude]

The answer if for congress to make a legal definition of corporation, instead we get the justice system coming up with a handwavy explanation that helps out their golfing buddies.

The answer is to get rid of the common law justice system and codify laws in congress like a civil law system. That way you dont get rich people trying to buy favors or "tip" judges.

[twelvechairs]

I dont think youd get less rich-people-friendly decisions from ccongress. It may well be the opposite. Certainly it removes some of the separation of powers.

[otterdude]

No but i think you get more accountability and visibility. Right now we could never do this but in a functioning democracy I think it would be prudent.

In civil law when there is no clear precedent congress gets involved preventing the kind of critisisms we get in our legal system of activist judges ect.

[anon291]

The treating of a corporation as a 'person' (which is a widely held misconception that doesn't really exist) rests in English common law, not any statute. Corporate personhood does not mean anything of what most people think it does. Corporations are obviously not people and are not treated as such.

[otterdude]

My point is the benefit greatly from the distinction, never codified in law. They have more rights and fewer responsibilities than actual people!

They way it "should" be is that congress creates a legal framework for coporations, then justices enforce that. Instead we are living with a nearly two centuries old common law that makes peoples lives worse.

My argument that if corporations are people, then they cannot be bought or sold is the kind of argument you can use to create legal precedent by suing some company over a merger or buyout to test the law and the strength of the original case law.