[PEN-L:33413] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>

>  If the corporate personhood rule wasn't adopted in the case that is
usually cited as its origin, it was adopted in subsequent cases. To
avoid circularity, it has to start somewhere.
>
>
>
> Ian

================

Trivially true. The larger issue is the interests and norms that went
into the *creation* of corporate personhood and their utter lack of
justificatory objectivity in mitigating the illusion of non-circularity
with regards to the stipulations/axioms that stand as "truth-makers." A
temporal *starting* of a body of case law is not equivalent to nor an
adequate justification for a non-circular justification for the creation
of an interpretation of a law, nor in the juridical establishment of a
legal norm that "breaks" with legislative precedents and intents, which
is what the entire case history of corporate personhood did. Defining a
corporation as a person doth not of necessity make it so and thus may be
endlessly contested. Holmes "infernal capriciousness of the law" stands
in stark relief when one looks at the post 1886 history of corporate
governance. But, hey, that's capitalism for 'ya.

Ian