Ensure the 14th Amendment refers to “natural persons.” As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, we need to examine the historical evolution of legal personality as well as the critical need for a clear line of distinction between different types of entities. A clear distinction between natural persons and artificial personas is critical to ensuring legal systems’

The Argument

Ensure the 14th Amendment refers to “natural persons.” As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, we need to examine the historical evolution of legal personality as well as the critical need for a clear line of distinction between different types of entities. A clear distinction between natural persons and artificial personas is critical to ensuring legal systems’ transparency, accountability, and fairness. Through a study of historical precedents and contemporary issues, it is imperative we justify the urgency of a constitutional change to set clear boundaries between these legal concepts. Legal personhood has evolved over millennia, with older legal systems acknowledging individuals as the principal recipients of rights and obligations. However, the rise of corporations in the contemporary age complicated this paradigm, blurring the distinction between natural and artificial entities. During the Industrial Revolution, corporations gained prominence, leading to debates over their legal status and rights. In landmark cases such as Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed corporations’ rights as artificial persons, capable of entering contracts and holding property. As corporations expanded in influence and scope, concerns arose regarding their accountability and responsibility. The lack of a clear demarcation between natural persons and artificial personas muddied legal proceedings, making it difficult to hold companies accountable for their conduct. The Gilded Age monopolies and the Great Depression demonstrate the dangers of unfettered corporate dominance. In response, regulatory measures such as the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and the Securities Act of 1933 were enacted to limit monopolistic activities and safeguard customers. However, as corporate law evolved and international firms proliferated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the legal landscape became even more difficult. The 2010 decision in Citizens United, which allowed corporations to spend limitless amounts on political elections, highlighted the need for clarity in defining legal personhood. A constitutional amendment to distinguish natural persons from artificial personas is imperative for safeguarding democratic principles and ensuring equitable governance. By establishing clear boundaries between individual citizens and corporate entities, the legal system can uphold accountability, transparency, and the rights of all and return our nation to one for “we the people” as originally intended and not “we the corporations.” The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was a pivotal moment in American 137 WHAT SHOULD WE DO TO LIMIT CORPORATE HEGEMONY? history, designed to protect the rights of newly freed slaves by ensuring equal protection under the law. Its primary clauses include the Citizenship Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The initial objective was to ensure that no state could violate fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the most recently freed slaves, in the aftermath of the Civil War. Initially, the 14th Amendment was lauded for its role in furthering civil rights and creating a legal foundation for mitigating racial discrimination. However, its meaning has evolved in unexpected ways over time. One notable transition happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Supreme Court began to apply the amendment’s protections to businesses. The landmark case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) is often cited as the origin of corporate personhood. Although the decision did not explicitly grant corporations 14th Amendment rights, a headnote by the court reporter indicated that the Court recognized corporations as “persons” under the amendment. This interpretation set a precedent for subsequent rulings, leading to an era where corporations could claim the same rights as individual citizens. The extension of 14th Amendment rights to corporations has had profound implications for American society. Corporations, driven by profit motives, have leveraged these rights to influence politics, evade regulations, and prioritize their interests over those of the general public. The Citizens United ruling, which allowed unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns, exemplifies the problematic nature of corporate personhood. This decision has led to a significant influx of corporate money in politics, undermining the democratic process and diluting the voices of individual citizens. The influence of corporations on politics and society has been significant. During the Gilded Age, powerful industrialists and their corporations wielded immense power, often at the expense of workers’ rights and environmental sustainability. The monopolistic practices of corporations like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel stifled competition and exploited labor, prompting government intervention through antitrust laws. More recently, the 2008 financial crisis highlighted the dangers of unchecked corporate power. Financial institutions, operating with minimal oversight, engaged in risky behaviors that ultimately led to a global economic meltdown. The subsequent government bailouts underscored the influence of corporations on public policy, as taxpayer money was used to rescue entities deemed “too big to fail” with the implied notion that the individual citizens and families who lost their homes were “too small to succeed.” By restoring the original intent of the 14th Amendment, we can safeguard the rights of individual citizens and promote democratic values. This would mark a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to balance the interests of individuals and corporations within the framework of American democracy.