There may be more to that ''we the people'' notion than you thought. These are boom times for the concept of ''corporate personhood.''
Corporations are people?
Mitt Romney got mocked during the 2012 presidential campaign for the very idea.
But it turns out the principle has been lurking in U.S. law for more than a century, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, gave it more oomph this week when it ruled that certain businesses are entitled to exercise religious rights, just as do people.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court's majority, said protecting the religious rights of closely held corporations, which are often small, family-run businesses, ''protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.''
In its ruling, the court said closely held corporations with religious objections cannot be forced to pay for their employees' insurance coverage for contraception, as required under President Barack Obama's health care law.
Four years earlier, the corporations-as-people idea got another big boost when the court voted 5-4 to expand the free speech rights of businesses and labor unions by striking down limits on their political spending. That unleashed a massive flood of private money into political campaigns.
The rulings have triggered renewed debate over the idea of corporations as people, which surfaces in legal cases stretching back to the 1880s.
There are wonky legal discussions about the differences between ''artificial persons'' (corporations) and ''natural persons'' (the kind with flesh and blood).
TV comics riff on the notion that fake people have more rights than real people.
There's a petition drive to amend the Constitution to ensure that ''inalienable rights belong to human beings only.''
All of this calls for a brief reality check: Corporations really aren't people.
Everyone knows this.
Even Romney, who was criticized for being out of touch when he famously told a protester that ''corporations are people, my friend.''
The point the GOP presidential candidate was trying to make was that raising taxes on corporations would affect real people because ''everything corporations earn ultimately goes back to people.''
The Supreme Court was reasoning in a similar vein when it ruled that the real people who run closely held corporations should be able to exercise religious rights just as do individuals.
Alito, in his ruling, described the concept of corporate personhood as ''a familiar legal fiction'' that retains its usefulness.
''It is important to keep in