Were corporations not accorded protections under the Bill of Rights (as argued in this piece on the theory that "state-created entities" are artificial and were not intended to be covered by such protections), among other things:<p>1. The government could conduct searches and seizures at will of corporate property in disregard of the Fourth Amendment.<p>2. It could take corporate property without compensation in disregard of the Fifth.<p>3. It could deny the rights of free speech to the New York Times and other corporate entities in disregard of the First.<p>4. It could deny the right of religious expression to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations that are incorporated.<p>Nor, if the logic of this piece were to be followed that "state-created entities" should not be protected under the Bill of Rights, would any other legally-recognized entity be entitled to such protections.<p>How about:<p>1. Universities.<p>2. Schools.<p>3. Charities.<p>4. Partnerships, LLCs, trusts, and other business entities (want the government to confiscate the IP or other assets of your startup and say it owes you nothing because it is not you but a mere "state-created entity" from which it is taking the property?).<p>This list could go on and on at great length.<p>The analysis in this piece may be something that one may want to advocate as some sort of ideal but, in terms of law, history, etc., it is quite flawed. I think this is more a talking point in the recent uproar over the <i>Citizens United</i> case than it is a serious point of constitutional discussion.