When you say "if corporations were people they would be subject to [things physical persons subject to in the US]", you insist that if A is legally equivalent t

When you say "if corporations were people they would be subject to [things physical persons subject to in the US]", you insist that if A is legally equivalent to B in context C(0), it must be equivalent also in any context C(n), but there's no sound logic to support this claim. Legal norms are not meant to reflect some inherent nature of things, they are nothing more than conventional agreements which take (and they must take) into account many nuances, concomitant circumstances, and context. So A can be legally treated as B in one situation, and not as B in another and that's just absolutely fine. (Laws of all countries are full of such things, and generally it is good, otherwise many laws would be either unbearable, or unenforceable.) That's why an "if this then that" argument cannot stand here. P.S. Sorry, if my previous comment wasn't clear. It was for me, so I assumed it is for others - it happens with me.