02 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand the most basic concept:
Further response is pointless; you can't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts.
As United States citizens each of us is supposed to have religious freedom.
In the US we are guaranteed freedom and protection from the government.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by SleepyguyI think for liberals this is simple.
How about "a group of citizens" then? Is that not essentially what we're talking about?
A group of citizens that does not file articles of incorporation with the state has rights.
A group of citizens that files articles of incorporation with the state has no rights.
This makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to pool resources to oppose government policy.
03 Jan 14
3 edits
Originally posted by techsouth😴😴
I think for liberals this is simple.
A group of citizens that does not file articles of incorporation with the state has rights.
A group of citizens that files articles of incorporation with the state has no rights.
This makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to pool resources to oppose government policy.
Is the State required to allow corporations? Did they exist in the Natural State? What would the Framers have made of the argument that corporations have the same rights as individuals?
For profit corporations are for just that. There are many, many, many ways for citizens to pool resources to affect government policy without incorporating.
03 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOh gawd we're back to the ever lovin savanna.
😴😴
Is the State required to allow corporations? Did they exist in the Natural State?
It doesn't matter. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law"...abridging free speech, religion etc. It's a restriction of government power plain and simple.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by SleepyguyLiteralism. I guess yelling "Fire!" in the theater is protected speech.
Oh gawd we're back to the ever lovin savanna.
It doesn't matter. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law"...abridging free speech, religion etc. It's a restriction of government power plain and simple.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe debate about yelling "fire!" is irrelevant. Seemingly all agree that the first amendment protects something. No one who is suggesting corporations have rights is suggesting that corporations have more of a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Literalism. I guess yelling "Fire!" in the theater is protected speech.
Let me get this clear, are you suggesting the New York Times is not protected by the first amendment?
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by techsouthSG was relying on the "no law" language and that makes my response relevant. Perhaps you should read the posts I am responding to.
The debate about yelling "fire!" is irrelevant. Seemingly all agree that the first amendment protects [b]something. No one who is suggesting corporations have rights is suggesting that corporations have more of a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Let me get this clear, are you suggesting the New York Times is not protected by the first amendment?[/b]
03 Jan 14
From Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.
There is nothing in Hobby Lobby's charter or certificate of incorporation which grants it any "right" to religious worship in the conduct of its business. By contrast, the charter and certificate of incorporation of the New York Times makes it a newspaper. Here's an apple, here's an orange.
03 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthTypical right winger.
No you didn't.
Just answer the damn question; this is "Debates". Does someone have a Constitutional right to form a corporation? Or are corporations merely allowed under State laws and subject to the conditions that the States wish to impose on these artificial entities?