3 ms·
SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itse
by ok_dad 3y ago
SpaceX is not a person, so it should not have constitutional protections. When forming a limited liability arrangement like this, you agree that the entity itself is governed by laws and regulations which may not be applicable to an individual. It’s a mistake for us to allow corporations to be treated as constitutionally protected entities.
- legitster 3y agoCorporations are a complete legal fabrication that only exist because they are constitutionally protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to say they should not have any constitutional protections. So while I agree they should not have the same level of individual rights as people, corporations are already allowed to sign checks and enter contracts own things and be sued. I'm just saying it makes more sense to me that we keep our constitutional powers separated. If it's a legal case it seems better for the judicial branch to do it.
- gamblor956 3y agoCorporations pre-date the Constitution, and exist in many countries without a constitution, so they do not exist because of "constitutional protections." Corporations are legal constructs. They are not entitled to any legal protections beyond what the governing jurisdictions decides as a matter of regular law, and they are certainly not entitled to Constitutional protections of their own. In the U.S., Constitutions derive their rights from their owners, and their rights are derivative of their owners.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]