Most Recent Posts

WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be more to that "we the people" notion than you thought.

These are boom times for the concept of "corporate personhood."

Corporations are people?

Mitt Romney got mocked during the 2012 presidential campaign for the very idea.

But it turns out the principle has been lurking in U.S. law for more than a century, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, gave it more oomph this week when it ruled that certain businesses are entitled to exercise religious rights, just as do people.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court's majority, said protecting the religious rights of closely held corporations, which are often small, family-run businesses, "protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them."

In its ruling, the court said closely held corporations with religious objections cannot be forced to pay for their employees' insurance coverage for contraception, as required under President Barack Obama's health care law.

Four years earlier, the corporations-as-people idea got another big boost when the court voted 5-4 to expand the free speech rights of businesses and labor unions by striking down limits on their political spending. That unleashed a massive flood of private money into political campaigns.

The rulings have triggered renewed debate over the idea of corporations as people, which surfaces in legal cases stretching back to the 1880s.

There are wonky legal discussions about the differences between "artificial persons" (corporations) and "natural persons" (the kind with flesh and blood).

TV comics riff on the notion that fake people have more rights than real people.

There's a petition drive to amend the Constitution to ensure that "inalienable rights belong to human beings only."

___

All of this calls for a brief reality check: Corporations really aren't people.

Everyone knows this.

Even Romney, who was criticized for being out of touch when he famously told a protester that "corporations are people, my friend."

The point the GOP presidential candidate was trying to make was that raising taxes on corporations would affect real people because "everything corporations earn ultimately goes back to people."

The Supreme Court was reasoning in a similar vein when it ruled that the real people who run closely held corporations should be able to exercise religious rights just as do individuals.

__

Alito, in his ruling, described the concept of corporate personhood as "a familiar legal fiction" that retains its usefulness.

"It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings," he wrote.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, zinged Alito and the majority for "an expansive notion of corporate personhood."

She said the "startling breadth" of the court's ruling could clear the way for corporations to opt out of all sorts of other legal requirements if they can cite a religious objection.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2016, voiced similar concerns.

"Just think about this for a minute," she said. "It's the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom."

Some opponents of the ruling see the expanding view of corporate personhood as a legal fiction run amok.

They say the latest court ruling could encourage corporations to try to claim greater rights in other areas as well — arguing against cruel and unusual punishment if they think a fine is too big, for example, or even seeking a corporate right to bear arms. The courts already have extended to corporations Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches but have declined to provide them Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

After the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign finance ruling, attorney Burt Neuborne lamented: "At the rate the court is going, soon we will be able to be adopted by a corporation. Maybe even marry one."

Now, Neuborne calls the latest court ruling "an immense perversion of the Constitution. Robots don't have rights, trees don't have rights, and neither do corporations."

He warned that the ruling could backfire against corporations if the court goes too far in extending individual rights to businesses. Breaching the wall between corporations and their shareholders, he said, could ultimately make corporations liable for the actions of their shareholders and vice versa.

For example, if Hobby Lobby, one of the companies that sued against covering some forms of contraception, owed someone money, its creditors might try to go after the shareholders, he said.

"I suspect there's going to be trouble in paradise down the road," said Neuborne, who wrote a brief for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law arguing against extending religious rights to businesses.

Attorney John Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general, said it makes sense that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals. After the court extended free-speech rights to corporations, "it's not a big leap to say that a First Amendment protection with respect to religious liberty would also apply to a corporation," he said.

Whether more rights should be extended, Bursch said, "is a little harder, and we'd all need to think about that."

___

Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter at http://twitter.com/nbenac

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) — Doctors believe that one of the two 12-year-old Wisconsin girls accused of stabbing a classmate to please a fictional character is not mentally competent to stand trial, attorneys said Wednesday.

The prosecution immediately requested a hearing to discuss the conclusions, which assess whether the girl is capable of assisting in her own defense. One of the psychologists was hired by the defense and the other is a state-appointed doctor.

Prosecutors also asked that the girl be given a separate evaluation to determine whether she had mental disease at the moment the crime was committed. The move suggests they're preparing for a possible insanity plea.

Waukesha County Judge Michael Bohren granted both requests and set the hearings for Aug. 1.

The girl, who according to the criminal complaint told police she stabbed the victim some 17 times, appeared in court separately from her co-defendant. Each wore blue prison garb and shuffled along slowly, their heads bowed and their cuffed hands clasped in front of them.

Prosecutors say the girls plotted for months to kill their 12-year-old friend to curry favor with the popular online specter known as Slender Man. They lured her to a park west of Milwaukee on May 31 and stabbed her 19 times in the arms, legs and torso, authorities said.

Doctors told police the knife narrowly missed a major artery near the victim's heart. The child has since been released from a hospital and is recovering at home.

The two girls are charged in adult court with being party to attempted first-degree intentional homicide. The Associated Press is not naming them while there is a chance their cases will be sent to juvenile court — the ultimate goal of both defense attorneys.

Wisconsin law says no defendant who is mentally incompetent may be tried, convicted or sentenced. So that issue is a significant factor in whether court proceedings continue.

Typically when doctors for the state and the defense agree on a defendant's incompetence, the judge halts proceedings and the defendant is committed to a mental hospital. If the defendant regains competence, the case resumes.

However, rather than accept the doctors' conclusion, deputy district attorney Susan Opper requested a hearing so the judge could consider the issue further.

"It is up to the court, not the doctors, to decide" the issue of competency, Opper told The Associated Press in an email. "Competency to stand trial constitutes a judicial inquiry, not a medical determination."

Opper also requested an examination to determine whether the girl had a mental disease or defect at the actual moment the crime was committed. That step doesn't usually occur until a defendant enters an insanity plea, when a test is required to evaluate whether the plea is justified.

Defense attorney Anthony Cotton objected to the examination, noting that his client hadn't entered a plea yet. But Opper said the question of mental disease could become relevant at some point, and she'd rather have the doctor's evaluation sooner rather than later.

Even if his client is found incompetent, Cotton wants court proceedings to continue. He said the law prevents a trial, conviction or sentencing but it wouldn't bar a preliminary hearing or efforts to have his client's case moved to juvenile court.

"We didn't raise the incompetence issue for strategic reasons," Cotton said. "Our whole goal is to see she gets the help she needs."

Opper said she would likely oppose any effort to continue if the girl were declared incompetent, citing state law that the court "shall suspend the proceedings" under such circumstances.

Joseph Smith Jr., the defense attorney for the second girl, said he had reason to believe mental competency would also be an issue in his client's case. He asserted his right to raise the issue down the line.

___

Associated Press writer M.L. Johnson in Milwaukee contributed to this report. Dinesh Ramde can be reached at dramde@ap.org.

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Gunmen killed a Somali lawmaker and his bodyguard in a drive-by shooting in the capital on Thursday, police said, the latest attack by suspected Islamic militants who have vowed to step up violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Mohamed Mohamud Heyd, his bodyguard, a parliamentary aide and another lawmaker were on their way to attend a parliamentary meeting in Mogadishu when their car was sprayed with bullets, said Capt. Mohamed Hussein of the Somali police. The attack happened near the fortified presidential palace, considered one of the safest places in Mogadishu, he said. Heyd and the bodyguard were killed, and the other two were injured, he said.

No group immediately claimed responsibility, but the Islamic extremist group al-Shabab frequently carries out similar attacks in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia.

Al-Shabab is increasingly targeting lawmakers at a time when the country's parliament is emerging as a pillar of democracy in the Horn of Africa nation.

Heyd is the third lawmaker killed in attacks this year.

Al-Shabab militants have previously carried out attacks against United Nations staff, government officials, African Union peacekeepers and last year on an upscale mall in Nairobi, the capital of neighboring Kenya which has sent troops into Somalia to battle al-Shabab.

July 01, 2014 8:45 AM ET