I recently read an article about a man driving in the HOV lane by himself. He had with him his corporation papers in hopes of showing that there was actually a second person in the vehicle. Now many of you have probably heard the idea that corporations are people, so what this man was trying to prove was that he was actually carpooling according to the law. This is a case I think where formalism can actually be beneficial because it is showing the ridiculousness of a previous law or the mere idea that a corporation is a person. If corporations are people then there surely must be a material manifestation of that person. The documentation seems to be the best case of this 'person' because the land and other resources of this corporation/person is merely the property of it. Do you think this man's case is valid?
Here is a link to the article and video.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16372432-california-man-says-he-can-drive-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers?lite
In terms of using semantics and linguistic argumentation then yes saying that if corporations are people, and these documents are physical manifestation of the company, then he is driving with another person in the car. These types of technicalities are the kinds of issues that legislators face when drafting the terms and conditions of how the laws are to be applied. The example Prof. Silliman used recently about the definition of the term vehicle in terms to a man appealing a ticket also shows how the way we write the law directly impacts its ability to be enforced.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting case.; one that exemplifies why precisely our collective common reasonableness is so important. Jonathan Frieman lost his case; the traffic referee ruled that his Frieman's use of the term lay outside the scope of legislative intent. And I think this is right. Vehicles with two or more “occupants” may access the HOV lanes. An "occupant" is defined as any person who occupies a safety restraint device, i.e. seat-belt. Second passengers are considered any living person. Frieman may strap his paperwork in a seat belt to no avail. If he received a paper cut from his paperwork, is this assault and battery, or if he destroys the paperwork, is this murder, of course not. Corporations have status as legal persons in context. He thinks the decision represents a form of discrimination against his paperwork. He's not proposing that the law be more specific in its terms, he seeks to prove that a corporation is a person in all contexts. What might result from this is that the law gets more specific, and possibly more restrictive, or cumbersome, because some folks want to play gotcha with the law.
ReplyDelete