Corporate Personhood

People have human rights that cannot be denied them, legally, by governments. Do corporations have similar rights? Or do corporations simply have privileges, which can be revoked?

Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation, as a group of people, may be recognized as having some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. This changes the relationship between individuals and organizations, enterprises and their administration, and even the government and individuals. Organizations, contracted by governments, are liable to the individuals with the administration going about as a middle person. Corporate personhood permits enterprises to control the administration and utilize it as a delegate to

Ideally they would take a strict-constructionist line and perceive that the Constitution does not mean companies when it says persons. This technique is improbable for a mixture of reasons, the chief being that the current Supreme Court is a result of the adulterated lawful framework and degenerate presidents and sanction by a degenerate Congress assign nominees. Furthermore, numerous detours have been incorporated with the framework to keep such a case from going to the Supreme Court. We would require a law particularly denying enterprises personhood, yet lawyers and judges have so far taken the perspective that any such law would be outside the permissible limits for nearby purviews. They can't even permit such a law to come up for a vote or submission. Therefore it could be said that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals but merely privileges, which could be revoked in

What this basically means is that the individuals who make up society have to give up some of their freedoms and rights to the government by giving the government power and authority over them. In exchange the government protects, cares and provides for these individuals through the rendering of public service. The agreement is entered into freely and in theory the people can always take back the power given to the government. Social license on the other hand can be said to be how a community approves or accepts a project undertaken by a company in their local community. In this instance, the main stakeholder involved is the community as a whole due to the impact of the project on the community. In lieu of the definitions above, it can be said that social license is similar to social contract differing only on the aspect that the contract is between communities and the corporations as opposed to the government. The term social license can be quite deceptive if we consider the literal interpretation of the term. A license is usually a permit you apply for that gives you the right to access, use or do something. In order to get a permit there must be an application process, probably some forms to fill out and sometimes some sort of fee is involved. As rightly