Sotomayor challenges corporate personhood

America's corporate and government leadership sports an official religion: corporate personhood.

This school of thought runs afoul of the public's understanding of the powers corporations are supposed to have. Under the unbending dogma of corporate personhood, corporations are treated as having the same rights as people - even though the Constitution does not authorize corporate "rights."

The Supreme Court once claimed corporations have human rights, just because. This bizarre belief is not considered binding law, because that wasn't the primary issue at hand, but it still holds sway.

But the court's newest Justice - Sonia Sotomayor - is challenging the bogus doctrine of corporate personhood.

As seen in an important campaign finance case, the court's more conservative Justices are absolutely convinced that corporations have almost limitless constitutional rights - even though the Constitution was clearly intended to protect only individuals, not Big Business. In fact, the court's conservatives have reduced constitutional protections for individuals, even as they expand corporate "rights." They've given corporations broader protections than people.

But Sotomayor says the court should reconsider this stance. She said it was an error for courts to create "a creature of state law with human characteristics" to begin with.

Sotomayor's suggestion is in keeping with constitutional law. Long-ago Chief Justice John Marshall once correctly wrote that a corporation "possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it." These "properties" do not include constitutional rights.

Sotomayor may have an ally even on the current Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its Creator with inalienable rights."

If the Supreme Court sticks to its policy of corporate personhood, a constitutional amendment may be needed to settle this.

(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html)