Thom mentions many times on the radio and on his shows how the 14th Amendment was interpreted to cover corporations because the authors only said persons instead of natural persons in the clause "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
While it might be possible to include ficticious persons such as corporations because they weren't specifically excluded, the first sentence of the amendment makes perfectly clear which persons it is talking about.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Since corporations cannot be born or naturalized, it is impossible to include them in the person category that the amendment is talking about. When standing on its own, the "any person" statement could be construed to include fictitious persons such as corporations, but the mentioning of persons who are born or naturalized explicitly excludes corporation from the group.
Why has no one thought to challenge the ridiculous interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has magically given corporations equal protection as human beings? Since they cannot be born or naturalized, they cannot be included in the persons that the amendment is talking about. They also cannot be citizens, so the inclusion of them for coverage by the amendment is even more ludicrous.