~>  ~> How about understanding that a "corporate person" is
a legal fiction
~>  ~> limiting liability of the actual persons involved in that corporation.

~>  EC> Completely false, since the limitation of legal liability of
~>  EC> shareholders far, far predates the Supreme Court cases on personhood,
~>  EC> and has NOTHING TO DO with those cases.

~> It is NOT completely false. A "corporate person" IS a legal fiction.

What you said was that it "is a legal fiction limiting liability of the
actual persons involved in that corporation."  The sentence is completely
false, for reasons that I explained and you ignored.

~>  EC> But also completely irrelevant, since the Citizens United case had
~>  EC> nothing to do with liability of corporations.  It was about free
~>  EC> speech.
 
~> You have a lot of trouble following logic and/or understanding cause and
~> effect, don't you, earl? The case was about granting free speech to a legal
~> fiction.

Which has nothing to do with your false claim that recognizing corporations
as artificial persons is what limits liability of shareholders.  Usually
your first sentence above would just be meaningless bluster trying to look
like an argument.  But, given your inability to understand what you are
talking about or to defend what you have claimed, it drips of irony.


 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a