Corporations are people my friend. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers?lite California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers When Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, Calif., was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane, he argued to the officer that, actually, he did have a passenger. He waved his corporation papers at the officer, he told NBCBayArea.com, saying that corporations are people under California law. Frieman doesn't actually support this notion. For more than 10 years, Frieman says he had been trying to get pulled over to get ticketed and to take his argument to court -- to challenge a judge to determine that corporations and people are not the same. Mission accomplished in October, when he was slapped with a fine -- a minimum of $481. Frieman has been frustrated with corporate personhood since before it became a hot button issue in 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate and union spending may not be restricted by the government under the First Amendment. At the heart of the high court ruling was the argument that corporations -- because they are composed of individuals – deserve protection under the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. Frieman, who faces a traffic court on Monday, plans to tell the judge that this isn’t about carpool lanes; it’s about corporate power. "I'm just arresting their power and using it for my service to drive in the carpool lane," he told NBC Bay Area's Jean Elle. University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot says Frieman’s argument may not hold up because it steers too far from the intent of carpool lane laws. "A court might say, ‘Well, it says person, and a corporation is a person, so that'll work for the carpool lane,’” Talbot told NBCBayArea.com. “It’s possible, but I doubt it.” In an opinion piece posted to the San Rafael Patch site on May 14, 2011, Frieman broke down his argument. A carpool lane is two or more persons per vehicle, he said. The definition of person in California’s Vehicle Code is “natural person or corporation.” “Just imagine what THAT courtroom scene’ll be like,” he wrote. He imagined what he might say to the judge: “Your honor, according to the vehicle code definition and legal sources, I did have a ‘person’ in my car. But Officer so-and-so believes I did NOT have another person in my car. If you rule in his favor, you are saying that corporations are not persons. I hope you do rule in his favor. I hope you do overturn 125 years of settled law.” But before he can make grand proclamations, the officer who ticketed him must show up to court. Otherwise, his ticket may be thrown out.
I think the man using his energy to fight the single greatest threat to this country's economic well being is a pretty solid use of time.
The "corporate speech isn't protected by the first amendment" argument is the same claim Jerry Falwell used against Hustler magazine (He also said such speech was a grievous threat to the nation). He lost. Never understood this line of reasoning. All speech by definition derives from human beings. What does it say about the left that they view speech as threatening?
Speech paid for does not have to stand on the merits, and allows corporations another inside track to influencing the electoral process, therefore speeding up government capture by creating a sense of obligation to placate multi-billion dollar institutions (a deeply-rooted need in America already). though i suppose it is overstated if one looks at the scoreboard. (how did your pre-election projections pan out?)
Stop externalizing the blame and acting like victims. There are plenty of cases of people who have succeeded in driving in the carpool lane alone without anyone noticing.
I don't actually believe that, I'm just mocking the mindset which I described. Should have added one of these:
Couldn't they just say that "corporation papers" don't fully constitute a corporation, thus isn't a person, thus pay your damn fine? I bet such an argument could be devised. It would sweep the larger point he's trying to make under the rug nicely.
thats my thought. Can I drive in the carpool lane with another persons drivers license and claim that they are my passenger? yea..didn't think so.
What constitutes a corporation then? If the articles incorporation don't prove the existence of a corporation what does? This goes to the heart of why the argument "corporations are people" is flawed.
Not sure why it is so hard for the right to accept that globalization and technology makes some portion of the constitution's semantic obsolete. For the most part their opinions, ideas, and reasoning were very clear and there is no way in hell they would support corporate influence in government.
A corporation existing doesn't mean it's riding in the car with you. But even so, the "corporations are people" argument is oversimpified anyway. It's not like the courts gave them citizenship, or voting rights, or anything else.
No, but the people that work under the corporations do have citizenship, and voting rights, and every thing else. Which directly relates to the corporation it's self.
And those people can ride in the car and be counted as people too. Not sure the relevance there - all it tells me is that corporations employ people.
Citizenship - Their interested are protected by the government Voting Rights - They have more say in our government than any one person - Their economic voting makes it so Corporations have more rights than people Corporations can kill people. . . . no death penalty for them. Rocket River
That's not what either the term citizenship or voting rights means when given to the people in the Constitution. Sure, if you want to redefine words, you can come up with that - but that seems to also be exactly what you're complaining that the courts did.
I don't like that we count corporations as people, but this guy's particular line of argument is dumb and will get nowhere. But, I suppose for his $481, he did get to take the carpool lanes for 10 years. That's probably worth it.
