I'm open to having misinterpreted the situation. How is corporate personhood not the same as a corporation being a legal person? I mean functionally, not semant

I'm open to having misinterpreted the situation. How is corporate personhood not the same as a corporation being a legal person? I mean functionally, not semantically. If you would, help me understand why this is not a difference without distinction. Please note I didn't pass any judgement on whether a corporate person is a useful construct or whether it should be abolished. I agree it serves a purpose and should continue to exist. What I would argue is "limited liability" as it applies to and shields company owners shouldn't mean "free from consequences" for the corporation as an aggregate. If I'm reading your post correctly, we don't disagree there.