I think I may have found a case that could possibly be brought to court by the proper group of individuals that could provide some leverage against the doctrine of corporate personhood. It's a bit complex, and I'm not sure I have all the bases covered, so read on and see if you can find a hole in my logic, and let's see if we can find ways to fix the problems we find here. I think this may have some potential.
Lets assume that we are members of a corporate board of directors. We show up to a board meeting one day, and discover that our company has been acquired via hostile takeover - a hedge fund now owns 60% of our company stock. Oh, and by the way, the fund had to borrow a billion dollars to acquire all that stock, and job one for our company NOW, accortding to our new owners, is to repay that loan, because the hedge fund assigned that debt to the company. This scenario has, of course, been replayed dozens, if not hundreds, of times over the past decade or so.
Now, it seems to me that, according to the Conservative interpretation of the 14th amendment, if the company is a PERSON, with all the rights attendant thereto, then the Hedge fund has certainly violated the rights of this corporate person. This (artificial) person has been PURCHASED and ENSLAVED by the hedge fund.
The Conservatives can't have it both ways. If the corporation can legally be purchased and forced to perform work to repay a debt incurred by the purchasor, and this is somehow NOT considered slavery, then the corporation is chattel (or perhaps real property), and NOT a person of any kind. If, on the other hand, the corporation is an artificial person, with constitutional rights, then it has an inalienable right to liberty, it cannot be purchased and therefore cannot be forced to do any kind of work to pay off any debts that it did not incur. Any attempt to impose such obligations is a violation of the constitutional rights of the artificial corporate person, and the original board of directors should be able to take the hedge fund to court, and sue for said violation.
What am I missing here, gang? Think we might be able to find a group that the above happened to, who might be willing to bring this kind of a suit? Comments, please.