This is a mischaracterization of the decision, which was that
corporations don't have "personal privacy", not that they are not
"persons". Entirely different issue.
In law a "person" is a
role that an actor may play in a legal
case, not the actor playing it. It is
roles, not
actors,
that have rights, powers, and duties in law. Each individual can be
many persons. Everyone is at least a private person and a public
person. Other persons an individual can be is "contracting party",
"partner', "parent", "child", "heir", "settlor", "trustee",
"beneficiary", or "official". Each such person can have different
rights, powers, and duties, even though embodied in the same individual.
This is basic Law 101. When did people stop being taught these basics?
On 03/01/2011 12:10 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
A Corporation is Not a Person, At Least Not Today
Interesting statutory interpretation discussion in today's
AT&T case
issued
by the Supreme Court. One absence in the discussion written by the
Chief Justice: no mention of legislative history.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------