> I think that's the general state of affairs. Functionally, yes, it's the same. My complaint is that I think the way it's described is way less intuitive than

> I think that's the general state of affairs. Functionally, yes, it's the same. My complaint is that I think the way it's described is way less intuitive than it could be, which is at least partially responsible for it being viewed as controversial. Of course saying "a corporation is person, just a different kind" is a more confusing than just saying "corporations are not people, but they're allowed to do some things people are"; the former makes the legal term "person" directly conflict with the common non-legal usage of the word, whereas the latter is consistent with it without actually changing things legally. Maybe the law _is_ defined like that, and the idea of "corporate personhood" is just an informal term, but if that's the case, it should be even easier for people to stop trying to convince doubters that it makes sense instead of just trying to find more intuitive language to describe the concept. I'm not even convinced there _needs_ to be a term because it's not really that confusing of a concept; nobody needed to declare animals as "zoological persons" to make it illegal to poach via murder statutes.