The Corporate Personhood Two-Step

Carliss N. Chatman
{"title":"The Corporate Personhood Two-Step","authors":"Carliss N. Chatman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2992275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The corporation cannot exist without founders complying explicitly with the requirements for incorporation provided by state statutes. The artificial entity theory acknowledges that a corporation does not exist until its founders meet all requirements for corporate formation imposed by the state. It also acknowledges that while human beings can do business collectively, contracting for many elements of the corporation without any state intervention, to take full advantage of the corporate form parties must comply with state requirements for formation. A corporation is also, by design, a new and distinct entity divorced from its people. The real entity theory acknowledges that once a corporation is formed, it has rights wholly separate from its founders that belong only to the corporation itself. By merging the artificial entity and real entity theories, the Court may properly define corporate rights. \nBecause of the dual nature of the corporation, corporate personhood should be a question of fact, not a matter of law. Corporate personhood requires weighing the evidence and making a case by case determination based on the choices made at formation and how the corporation operates. Determining a corporation’s rights requires the Court to engage in a two-step analysis that gives deference to this duality. The Court must first rely on how the corporation is defined by statute to determine whether it is required to acknowledge the existence of the right for the corporation itself, then decide whether state action infringes on that right if it exists. Problems arise in corporate personhood jurisprudence when the courts give rights to corporations that states, legislatures, and founders did not intend. \nWhen granting corporations constitutional rights based on the rights of founders and shareholders in the aggregate, the Court is ignoring the parameters of the state law definition of the corporation, as well as the affirmative choices of corporate founders who deliberately choose the corporation over other forms of business. Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are recent examples of this dismissal of corporate statutes for the sake of protecting the rights of the people who make up the corporation. Contrary to the commentary of the Court in these decisions, the corporation is not designed or intended to be an association of citizens. Engaging in a two-step analysis shows that it is impossible for a corporation to be an association of citizens.","PeriodicalId":204227,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Corporate Law Including Merger & Acquisitions Law (Sub-Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Corporate Law Including Merger & Acquisitions Law (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2992275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The corporation cannot exist without founders complying explicitly with the requirements for incorporation provided by state statutes. The artificial entity theory acknowledges that a corporation does not exist until its founders meet all requirements for corporate formation imposed by the state. It also acknowledges that while human beings can do business collectively, contracting for many elements of the corporation without any state intervention, to take full advantage of the corporate form parties must comply with state requirements for formation. A corporation is also, by design, a new and distinct entity divorced from its people. The real entity theory acknowledges that once a corporation is formed, it has rights wholly separate from its founders that belong only to the corporation itself. By merging the artificial entity and real entity theories, the Court may properly define corporate rights. Because of the dual nature of the corporation, corporate personhood should be a question of fact, not a matter of law. Corporate personhood requires weighing the evidence and making a case by case determination based on the choices made at formation and how the corporation operates. Determining a corporation’s rights requires the Court to engage in a two-step analysis that gives deference to this duality. The Court must first rely on how the corporation is defined by statute to determine whether it is required to acknowledge the existence of the right for the corporation itself, then decide whether state action infringes on that right if it exists. Problems arise in corporate personhood jurisprudence when the courts give rights to corporations that states, legislatures, and founders did not intend. When granting corporations constitutional rights based on the rights of founders and shareholders in the aggregate, the Court is ignoring the parameters of the state law definition of the corporation, as well as the affirmative choices of corporate founders who deliberately choose the corporation over other forms of business. Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are recent examples of this dismissal of corporate statutes for the sake of protecting the rights of the people who make up the corporation. Contrary to the commentary of the Court in these decisions, the corporation is not designed or intended to be an association of citizens. Engaging in a two-step analysis shows that it is impossible for a corporation to be an association of citizens.
企业人格的两个步骤
如果创始人不明确遵守州法规对公司成立的要求,公司就不能存在。人工实体理论认为,除非公司创始人满足国家规定的公司成立的所有条件,否则公司就不存在。它还承认,虽然人类可以在没有任何国家干预的情况下集体开展业务,就公司的许多要素签订合同,但为了充分利用公司形式,各方必须遵守国家对公司形式的要求。从设计上讲,公司也是一个与人分离的新的、独特的实体。实体理论承认,一旦公司成立,它就拥有完全独立于创始人的权利,这些权利只属于公司本身。通过合并人工实体理论和实体理论,法院可以正确界定公司权利。由于公司的双重性质,公司人格应该是一个事实问题,而不是一个法律问题。公司人格要求权衡证据,并根据成立时的选择和公司的运作方式逐一确定。确定公司的权利要求法院进行两步分析,以尊重这种两重性。法院必须首先依靠法规对公司的定义来决定是否需要承认公司本身的权利的存在,然后决定如果公司存在,州政府的行为是否侵犯了该权利。当法院赋予公司一些州、立法机关和创始人并不打算赋予公司的权利时,公司人格法理学中的问题就出现了。在授予公司以创始人和股东的权利为基础的宪法权利时,法院忽视了州法律对公司定义的参数,也忽视了公司创始人的肯定选择,他们故意选择公司而不是其他形式的企业。“联合公民”和“爱好游说团”是最近的例子,说明为了保护组成公司的人的权利而摒弃公司法规。与法院在这些判决中的评论相反,公司不是被设计或打算成为公民的社团。两步分析表明,企业不可能成为公民的社团。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信