When did corporations gain the rights of individuals?
153358
Corporations have always had some of the rights of individuals, but Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) was a turning point where they began to become considered nearly identical to persons. The site below has a pretty good history of the development.
85234
You could say when it was implemented in 1868 since it never met Constitutional requirements for ratification.\n\nCertainly when supported by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas V. White in 1869.
62056
"Collect taxes" is probably the answer you're looking for, but in fact "E) All of the above" is the correct answer. People have rights; Congress receives authority from the People.
65986
Of course our rights stem from the Bill of Rights which amended the Constitution.  However, and more importantly, our rights are preserved by the "Rule of Law" and that depends on our Court system being independent of Congress or the Whitehouse.  Many countries had constitutions, lawyers and elections but lost their freedom when they lost the rule of law.  Nazi Germany is a good example.  I know of investors who shy away from investments in Russia today because they doubt that the rule of law there will protect their rights.  perhaps things will change for the better.
788274
It's because big corporations want it that way. Cheap labor. It used to be that big corporations controlled the government to a large degree. Now they are the government.
613820
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights
388297
Bechtel (San Francisco MNE) had sole rights over all the water in Bolivia. It even had rights over the water falling from the sky (rain). At one point in time, half of the citizenry's daily income was being paid to Bechtel for water. By the by, I think that the better questions to ask may be: does the WTO and World Bank force nations to give up their sovereignity in exchange for emergency funds? Second question: do corporations have a limited charter and should that charter's expiration be at the discretion of the public? That's the way it used to be in the USA when corporations began incorporating, sometimes in the late 1700s, early 1800s.
145542
Well, they did give them equal rights and the right to vote. There are also cases of affirmative action (choosing a person for a job or college because they are of a different race; it's also called reverse racism).
1048960
1972.  The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971.
57087
No, in 1997, Family Code, Chapter 1.107 was enacted to abolish the right to bring an alienation of affection lawsuit.
285528
People... We enter into a social contract and make government to protect our rights.  We're willing to give up some rights to protect others. - John Locke in a nutshell.
495763
"Copyright (C) 1994-2000" means that different arts of the work were copyrighted in various years from 1994 to 2000. "R&A Inc" is the company that holds the copyrights. Since it is a corporate author, the copyright is valid for 95 years, meaning that parts of the work will be freely copyable after 2089 and the entirety after 2095. "All rights reserved" is a statement formerly required by the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910 to make copyright claims valid in member countries. All of the member states subsequently signed the Berne Convention, which came into effect on August 23, 2000 and no longer requires the statement.
101012
Jefferson was the author of the Declaration (1776), Governor of Virginia (1779-81), US Secretary of State (1789-1795), Vice President (1797-1801) and President (1801-1809).\nHe was a strong beleiver in individualism and individual autonomy, free markets, and limited government.   \n\nJohn Locke is consider the origin of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental ("unalienable") right of humanity.  Locke wrote of the rights ot "life, liberty and estate (or property)."  Jefferson thought the right to "estate" was too closely tied to the concept of "feudalism."  The idea of phrasing it "life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth" was considered, but eventually the current phraseology won out.  In any event, the idea that life and liberty were fundamental rights had previously been expressed by Locke and others.\n\nYour question is really too broad to be covered in a brief answer here.  I suggest looking up James Madison, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia or some other encyclopedic site.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/
770845
The U.S. Constitution was drafted on September 17, 1787.\n\nIt was officially ratified and became effective March 4, 1789.\n\nThe first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") were ratified December 15, 1791.
337293
The first instance of it was in 1866 appearing under the umbrella of civil rights laws.   \n  \nOriginally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... " \n\nIn 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. \n\nIn 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. \n\nDuring 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ." \n\nThe 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." \n\nIn 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. \nOther equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." \n\nMuch of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
49652
I'd say one was passage of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Delegates of a representative democracy (elected by a majority) voted for it.\n\nYou could extend that reasoning to cover everything from voting rights, to certain rights for illegal aliens, to SBA incentives for minorities to start businesses. \n\nI hope this is for school and you're cheating.
532280
Yes, I think they did get their just due, so to speak.  More significantly, this is one big wake up call to Corporate America.  It says, People aren't going to tolerate being deceived.  Wake up Execs!  Run your company with the best interest of your people at heart.  You are accountable.  And the 'System' will not protect you.