European Tribune

Display:
That's not a law, that was a Supreme Court decision, and thus higher than any law.  One would need a constitutional amendment for that, I think.
by Zwackus on Wed Oct 1st, 2008 at 01:51:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not familiar with the relevant case law, but perhaps corporations could be nerfed in ways that don't contradict the decision in question. By, for instance, imposing the demand that only half the board can be composed of representatives of the stockholders, while the other half is to be composed of members elected by the employees by secret ballot.

But oh, the hue and cry that would go up :-P

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or a Constitutional Amendment.

Or, you could simply restrict the granting of corporate personhood in meaningful ways, or that corporate persons be tasked with activities other than maximum shareholder return.

by Zwackus on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 at 04:17:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... it was introduced in a summary of a Supreme Court decision by the chief clerk, and then that summary of the decision referred to when the decision was used as a precedent.

But overturning it would require a quite different court than the one we have now.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series