In a legal context, corporations can be considered "individuals" in certain respects and with limitations. This concept is known as "corporate personhood." It means that corporations have some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as individuals. For example, corporations can enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and be held liable for their actions.
The idea of corporate personhood has been established through various legal rulings, particularly in the United States. One of the most notable cases is the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which affirmed that corporations have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, allowing them to spend money on political campaigns.
Oddly enough, the argument against corporate personhood is rooted in a known religious-based argument, as many religious folks claim that humans were created by god while corporations and businesses are human inventions, so therefore corporations do not ever deserve the privilege of being considered individuals.
Although its opponents may not realize it, corporate personhood is extremely important and serves as one of the main preventative measures against government overreach. Generally speaking, corporations are entitled to 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment protections. While the main point of contention when it comes to personhood is the 1st Amendment rights granted by the Citizens United ruling, the more important protections are provided by the other amendments.
For example, the 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law. This is important for corporations because it prevents state governments or other jurisdictions from passing legislation that unduly burdens a corporation while not affecting other citizens.
Equally as important to corporate personhood is the 4th Amendment, which grants protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Without the protection of the 4th Amendment, corporations could be raided by the government and have their assets seized with no legal recourse. Fourth Amendment protections were extended to corporations in the Los Angeles v. Patel ruling, which involved police attempting to search a hotel guest registry.
Prevention of unfair treatment by the government at any level is the most important reason for the existence of corporate personhood.
As for the state of Texas, over the years that state's Government has ruled against multiple organizations for (supposed) violations pertaining to labor practices, environmental regulations, and consumer protection just to name a few. So in that sense, the state has no qualms in figuratively executing a corporation.-
[upcounsel.com]
My understanding is that the founding fathers never wanted to allow corporations without an expiration date. The founders had experienced the worst of corporate behavior from the East India Company. The East India Company was granted "royal monopolies" which allowed them to escape taxes, while small merchants were heavily taxed. This situation led to to protest action of "The Boston Tea Party".
Corporations didn't receive perputual life with no expiration date until the U.S. built railroads. However, the way the tax code was written congress only had the right to tax persons, not corporations, wo they made corporations "artificial persons" rather than revamping the entire tax code.
Since then thee has been the legal argument that if corporations are persons, then they are entitled to constitutional rights, just like natural persons are.. This argument has mostly been made to try to avoid government regulations, and ironically in some cases taxes, in order to maximize profits.
@snytiger6 While you are probably right on the part about the Founding Fathers desiring "expiration dates" for corporations, a case could also be made for the same for the Government, the latter of which has become far bigger than what the Founders had in mind.
Today, constitutional rights for corporations are limited compared to on an individual basis. Corporations themselves do not have a right to vote, they have limited privacy rights compared to individual citizens, they also do not have a right against self-incrimination. The Second Amendment technically does not extend that right to corporations, they have less protection against double jeopardy, just to name a few examples of how individuals have more rights than corporations do. I don't disagree on the taxes part there, but I think such scenarios occur when enough (corporate entities) question who exactly gets to decide regulations for others and who exactly gets to regulate the regulators? As long as there are disagreements on issues like that, people/corporate entities will find ways to skirt around legislation. While I may not personally condone such, I can understand why that sort of thing happens, when some believe such regulations are unfair they will take matters into their own hands then.