I think it perfect at first glance.

"of a person" rather than "others" and a corp is not a person.....

There is a good deal of unresolved discussion about which 'others' have rights, whether or not they're 'persons' by any standard. As a typical furry example, imagine that in twenty years, somebody creates bunnies the size of people, kind of shaped like people, eager to serve and be petted and so on - where's the dividing line between a human-like animal and an animal-like human? This is part of the reason I included clause 3.

Personhood needs not be all that complicated. You can't have corporations if the people that make it up aren't collectively protected as a single entity. A corporation is a person because in law a person is role that an individual takes to accomplish their tasks. For instance a married couple is by law treated as single "person" when it comes to respect of property and taxes, so why can't the shareholders, board of directors and their agents not be encompassed each in their own distinct role as part of a corporate person? This hang up over a word between its legal usage and its vernacular usage shows considerable ignorance of the development of modern law that is for the most part evolved over the last 500-600 years.

Because a corp can't go to "jail" so its often used as the scapegoat, because a corp tips the balance of power away from the people/persons due to the amount of money/leverage it can "spend", finally because a corp is NOT a living thing. Marriage really shouldn't be considered the way it is either.

The words used in law are not going to always have the same meaning in the common vernacular, especially when the vernacular changes over time. Most importantly the words of a constitution (and words of the statutes authorized by the constitution) original explicit meanings cannot be changed merely because the words used in the vernacular change as well. Once a legislative act is ratified, it is frozen until amended by the lawful means. This is an important legal distinction that has real court room weight, judges often can only be swayed on matters of construction (the legal term for interpreting the constitution) by having hard evidence before them of the debates in open session on the what was really expected of the law.

The consequences of removing the recognition of corporate personhood is considerable because doing so also makes all sorts of associations lose basic protections, not to mention it can be used as justification for more sinister violations. If a "corporation" was to commit a crime, which they can do, would the people that make up that corporation have the same rights as individuals or would they forfeit them and be subject to what ever government action it deems necessary? If a corporation is not a person can any property a corporation has title to be searched at will? What if that property was leased between a corporation and a sole proprietor (in other words, a single individual, who assumes all the legal risks himself)? Could the assets of a corporation that was intended to be distributed to its constituent shareholders (in what we know as Dividends) be immediately seized by the government on the account of an accounting error? Does a corporation have the right to innocence until proven guilty? Do the constituent shareholders as part of that corporation have the right to innocence until proven guilty? Does burden of responsibility for a corporation extend only to the corporation itself or to its shareholders and its corporate agents (in other words, the employees)?

These questions are important and there are far more questions like these that need to be resolved before corporate personhood can be eliminated. There's so much at stake here that its important to understand how serious the issue is. A corporation can take many forms from C-corps and S-Corps of the IRS, to non-profit organizations like charities and even organized religions (yes, religions are organized in the United States as corporations, should their house of worships be searched at will for all sorts of pretexts?). The most important benefit of a corporation is that the assets and liabilities under its control cannot be assumed by its principle shareholders. What this means is that when people organize a corporation the corporation can be stuck with its own debt and not passed on to the primary owners (shareholders), members of the corporation's board of directors/trustees, and its own agents (employees).

And while a corporation cannot go to jail, its principle parts can, because the principles of the corporation are why the corporation did things in its name that were illegal. This is why Kenneth Lay went to trial and was convicted for his role in the Enron scandal, this is why Arthur Anderson, Enron's accounting firm lost its business license as the corporation itself was convicted of felony fraud despite it later being overturned in appeal. Arthur Anderson was so badly damaged by Enron that it stopped doing business entirely. The reason why corporations are seen as the big bad that get away with everything is because your system of government has become a corrupt mess of politicians who resort to either extorting business for campaign money by threatening to pass legislation against them OR become buddy-buddy with them for quid pro quo dealings (in other words, cronyism). The only way to fix that is attack the problem where it lays, in the corruption by voting out the politicians that thrive on this cycle and by only supporting people who want to reform the system to be fair and equitable.

http://constitutionalism.blogspot.c.....corporate.html

Hrmmm... There was a good argument I've heard before, that contracts are not formed in a vacuum. IE, there are expectations in place, expectations which would be onerous and pointless to include in every contract but critical to the value of the exchanged consideration nonetheless. As such, I've come up with an idea (independently, but I'm sure others have had it as well) for government to have the limited capacity of establishing 'Assumptions of Contract'. Basically, wherever you have a regulation (ie, 'you must sell something in THIS manner, full stop), you can most likely replace said regulation with an Assumption of Contract (ie, 'you must do it in this manner unless it's reasonably disclosed in the contract'). For example - raw milk. Currently there are regulations that prevent it from being sold, as only pasteurized milk can be sold. However, with an Assumption of Contract, the bottle only needs to be clearly labeled as 'Raw Milk', for it to be sold. In this manner the societal protections offered by regulation are by-and-large maintained, without unduly harming a person's right to engage in free commerce.

Thoughts?

Seems ok to me, I like the way number 3 seems to approach law enforcement in a constructive manner.

Could there be a definition for who is identified as being an infringer on rights, so that an individual could not be held responsible for the actions of others? Like, for example, I don't think someone should be held guilty because their religion or ethnicity has commited crimes in the past.