So, you're suggesting that corporation law should be changed to eliminate owner protection?
To some degree, yes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, you're suggesting that corporation law should be changed to eliminate owner protection?
They are. The thing is, corporations were created to limit liability to the actual assets of the business. Eliminating that protection will eliminate investments in corporations.
Why do you say that? Again, I'm not talking about 'unlimited' liability. Just something in between that, and what we have now. The circumstance I'm trying to avoid is something like the following:
If the sole owner of a business hired someone and told them "do whatever it takes to turn a profit", and the employee went out and did all kinds of unscrupulous acts, I assume you'd agree the owner should be held accountable. Well, I see something similar going on with corporations. That's why CEO's are paid so much. They're essentially hired guns, to do the dirty work of the investors, who reap the profits generated by the questionable practices of the executive officers of the corporation. I don't think it's right that the 'owners' of the corporation should be insulated from the activities from which they profit.
Constitutional Convention
As court interpretations of the constitution grows, the people have less and less voice on how their government is run.
The constitution needs to be looked at as a living document that changes as times change. IMHO, if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, if would look quite different.
Therefore, it will have to be the responsibility of every citizen to be vigilant in overseeing their representatives and holding them accountable lest our democracy turn into a corporate tyranny.
Constitutional Convention
An even worse super bad idea.
As court interpretations of the constitution grows, the people have less and less voice on how their government is run.
The peoples voice is through their elected officials in a Constitutional Republic both the people and the government are subject to the rule of law. The Constitution and its subsequent case law codifies that law. We do not want the people making decisions pertaining to individuals civil rights via popular vote. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The constitution needs to be looked at as a living document that changes as times change. IMHO, if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, if would look quite different.
Actually it would look exactly the same, the Constitution is neither living nor static; it codifies the basic principles of the rule of law necessary to protect our freedoms and rights no government or constitution gave us nor can take away.
Justice Kennedy expressed it perfectly in Lawrence v Texas:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
What is "loaded" about it?"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, [...]
Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?
What is "loaded" about it?"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, [...]