In court cases involving religious entities, the deity (the deity or God is a supernatural being who is considered divine or holy) is also a “legal entity” that can engage in legal affairs through “trustees” or “temple-appointed boards of directors.” The Supreme Court of India (SC) ruled in the 2010 decision on Ram Janmabhoomi`s Ayodhya case that the deity Rama in the respective temple was a “legal entity” authorized to be represented by its own lawyer appointed by the trustees acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, SC ruled in 2018 that the deity Ayyappan is a “legal entity” with “the right to privacy” in the court case over the entry of women into Lord Ayyapan`s Sabarimala Shrine. [22] Section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 states: “. The provisions of this Bill of Rights shall apply, as far as possible, for the benefit of all legal persons and natural persons. Comedy Central comedian Stephen Colbert tried unsuccessfully to put the question of the company`s personality on the South Carolina ballot, and also founded a SuperPAC that asked if voters would feel comfortable if Mitt Romney dated his daughters` businesses. In Italy, trade unions have legal personality, as stipulated in Article 39(4) of the Constitution: the idea that companies have legal rights and therefore a kind of personality is not an invention of contemporary conservatives. Its roots go back to the history of American law and deep into the tradition of English common law. This tradition was captured in the most comprehensive way – and communicated with the greatest force to the American founders – by William Blackstone`s comments on the laws of England. Even the table of contents in this book testifies to the legal tradition of granting rights to legal persons. Chapter 18, “Of the Enterprise,” is placed in “Book First: The Rights of Individuals.” An important part of the relevant jurisprudence is the Supreme Court`s decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which declared certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending during elections unconstitutional. [28] Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. In 2010, the Federal Election Commission, which defends the rights of corporations to unlimited political spending under the First Amendment, made several calls for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personality. [10] Citizens United`s majority opinion does not refer to the personality of the company or the Fourteenth Amendment, but argues that the right to political expression does not depend on the identity of the speaker, who could be a person or an association of persons.
[11] [12] Then came Citizens United, the Supreme Court`s 5-4 Decision on the First Amendment in 2010, which for the first time extended the full right of corporations to spend money as they wished in candidate elections – at the federal, state and local levels. The decision overturned a century of legal understanding, sparked a flood of campaign money and created a crescendo of controversy that continues to this day. A legal or artificial person (Latin: persona ficta; also a legal person) has a legal name and has certain rights, property rights, privileges, responsibilities and responsibilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of legal entity is a fundamental legal fiction. It is relevant to the philosophy of law because it is essential for laws that affect a company (company law). The prevailing view from the 1920s to the 1980s, championed by philosopher John Dewey, asserted that such perspectives are often overgeneralizations and that the decision to grant corporate rights in a particular field should be determined by the resulting consequences. In the 1980s, there was an explosion of economic analysis, with a company often seen as a combination of contracts and as a sales representative that should act on behalf of its shareholders. Legal Entity means a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes.
The term “legal person” is often used in the field of business law. “And we are now applying constitutional rules to concentrate corporate power in a way that is dangerous for democracy,” he said. A similar study of religious freedom leads to similar results. Again, the First Amendment does not use the word “person” when it provides for freedom of religion. He simply says, “Congress does not enact any laws. Prohibition of the free exercise of religion”. As in the case of freedom of expression, the simplest reading of this language suggests that freedom is protected regardless of who exercises it, whether natural or artificial. In fact, it would be strange if the law did not extend to corporations, because, as Blackstone of England noted and as was also the case in early America, religious organizations were often founded as societies. The term “legal person” can be ambiguous as it is often used as a synonym for terms that refer only to non-human legal persons, in particular as opposed to “natural person”. [10] [11] When we think of businesses these days, we think first of trade. It is certainly worth remembering that America has become a great and powerful trading nation, especially through corporate operations. It is unlikely that we could have achieved such prosperity or our economic place in the world if companies had not obtained significant legal rights.
This point was acknowledged, at least implicitly, even by the greatest liberal heroes: in his 1932 “Commonwealth Club Speech,” Franklin Roosevelt attributed America`s growth into colossal manufacturing power to the activities of large “industrial combinations”—which he also called “big business.” Of course, Roosevelt argued that these companies had become too powerful and should be more strictly regulated by the government. But he never suggested that they should be deprived of their legal existence and the rights associated with it. On the contrary, he explicitly rejected this idea, even when it comes to the most powerful corporations. The dictionary defines “society” as “a certain number of people united in a society for a single purpose”. Companies date back to the Middle Ages, observes John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia, an authority on corporate law. “One would think that the Catholic Church is probably the first entity that could buy and sell real estate in its own name,” he says. Since the 19th century, the legal entity has been interpreted in such a way as to make it a citizen, resident or resident of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C.
& C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, for the purposes of this case, an enterprise “is likely to be treated as a citizen [of the State that created it] in the same manner as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed Letson`s conclusion, albeit on the slightly different theory that “those who use the company`s name and exercise the powers it confers” should be conclusively considered citizens of the company`s founding state. Marshall v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by law, as laws on U.S. jurisdiction specifically affect the headquarters of companies. While natural persons acquire “natural” legal personality by simply being born (or before, in some jurisdictions), legal persons must have the legal personality conferred on them by an “unnatural” legal procedure, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as “artificial” persons. In the most common case (incorporation of a company), legal personality is usually acquired by registering with a government body created for this purpose. In other cases, it may be a primary law: an example is the Charity Commission in the UK.
[8] The United Nations` Sustainable Development Goal 16 calls for the provision of legal identity for all, including birth registration by 2030 as part of the 2030 Agenda. [9] In Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific of 1886 – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), Supreme Court Justice Waite orally ordered lawyers that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protection to businesses in addition to individuals, and that the hearing should focus on other issues in the case. [14] In santa clara, stenographer Bancroft Davis[15] noted in the footnote of the opinion that Chief Justice Morrison Waite began the hearing by saying, “The court does not want to hear arguments as to whether the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a state from denying any person within its jurisdiction the same protection of the law, applies to these companies. We all think that is the case. [16] Although the guiding principle is not part of the Court`s opinion and therefore does not constitute a precedent, two years later in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 USA 181 (1888), the Court clearly upheld the doctrine by stating: “Under the term `person,` there is no doubt that a private corporation [in the Fourteenth Amendment] is included. These entities are only associations of persons who are united for a particular purpose and who may carry on their activities under a particular name and have several members without dissolution. [17] This doctrine has since been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Court. [Citation needed] In legal proceedings concerning animals, animals have the status of “legal person” and humans have a legal obligation to act as “loco parentis” towards animal welfare, as a parent has done towards minor children.