Comment & Debate
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a person as: “one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.”[1] To contend that “personhood” cannot or has never been linguistically applied to corporations is, therefore, clearly false. While the debate can continue on other grounds, it is plain that the idea of corporate personhood has been long-standing, even if not widely accepted.
Oxford English Dictionary: “An individual (NATURAL PERSON n.) or corporate body (artificial person) recognized by the law as having certain rights and duties.
Quotes in the OED to back-up claims of corporate personhood:
1475 Rolls of Parl. VI. 150/1 Almaner Londes, Tenementes..and Pensions, which any persone Temporell, corporat or not corporat..then had, held, posseded, or occupied.
1765 W. BLACKSTONE Comm. Laws Eng. I. i. 123 Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.
1833 Act 3 & 4 Will. IV c. 74 §1 The word ‘Person’ shall extend to a Body Politic, Corporate, or Collegiate, as well as an Individual.
1900 Daily News 20 Apr. 7/5 A Bill..extending to juridical persons, that is, duly registered corporations or partnerships, the right to engage in mining.”[2]
Apparently, from 1475 to 1900, the word person was used to indicate corporations. It has been and remains a commonplace of legal reasoning and political theory.