Obamacare Recreates the First Estate

Originally posted by normbenign
Name a corporation that is devoid of people?

A corporation is "devoid of people" in the same sense that a shovel is - it is an artificial, legal construct that sometimes serves a useful purpose to society.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not a single State recognized such a "right" when the Constitution was adopted. It is a bizarre assertion that an artificially created entity has the same "rights" as a person. The Framers would have found such a claim nonsensical.

There is nothing "bizarre" in saying that a corporation's charter defines its powers and "rights"; that is basic ...[text shortened]... allows any assertions in the charter to have force of law is up to the State's corporation law.

Has there ever been a challenge to the right of individuals or groups to incorporate?

Originally posted by normbenign
Apparently, since SCOTUS hasn't ruled State laws defining and allowing incorporation unconstitutional, forming corporations is a constitutional right.

That is the sort of rationale declaring abortion legal and Constitutional.

🙄🙄

Originally posted by normbenign
Has there ever been a challenge to the right of individuals or groups to incorporate?

By whom? Absent State laws allowing incorporation, it would not exist. Those State laws now exist, but they don't and can't confer a constitutional right.

Originally posted by no1marauder
All people. Not all things. Does your toaster have a the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? No. It is a thing, a tool that men create for a specific purpose.

And so is a corporation.

Except that unlike a toaster, a corporation represents a human or group of humans under the law, in pursuit of business interests.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is really bizarre when I suspect the majority of corporations are actually individuals, who incorporate for the protection of their personal assets from actions against their business practices.

An individual is an individual and the corporation he forms is a separate and distinct legal entity. They are not the same thing.

Originally posted by normbenign
Except that unlike a toaster, a corporation represents a human or group of humans under the law, in pursuit of business interests.

So what? It's a thing created by people, a tool. To say it has Natural Rights is absurd.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
People give money to politicians because they endorse the politicians' platform. It is symbolic speech.

Not just symbolic, but money buys radio and TV time which is real tangible speech.

Originally posted by Eladar
Really?

Usually both people running for office have been bought. What do the voters do then?

Bought? I doubt it. Campaign contributions come from sources that usually already dramatically favor a particular candidate. Nobody at the last minute decided to give the money earmarked for Romney instead to Obama to get a new phone, or anything else. Bribery has to include a quid pro quo.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.

Reality appears to invalidate that hypothesis.

As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements?

If the law is properly enforced, sure, why not?[/b]

Ever heard of a "double milker bill"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? It's a thing created by people, a tool. To say it has Natural Rights is absurd.

I didn't say it has natural rights, as I don't believe people do either.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An individual is an individual and the corporation he forms is a separate and distinct legal entity. They are not the same thing.

The corporation (llc) is the individual subject to the restrictions of the laws of the State on corporations.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By whom? Absent State laws allowing incorporation, it would not exist. Those State laws now exist, but they don't and can't confer a constitutional right.

People challenge State laws all the time, and pursue those suits all the way to SCOTUS. If State laws on incorporation aren't challenged they are presumed to be Constitutional. SCOTUS has ruled on corporations right to political speech.

Originally posted by normbenign
People challenge State laws all the time, and pursue those suits all the way to SCOTUS. If State laws on incorporation aren't challenged they are presumed to be Constitutional. SCOTUS has rules on corporations right to political speech.

State laws on incorporation are constitutional. That does not imply that corporations have rights not granted by those laws.

Originally posted by techsouth
This works more often the not the other direction. The politicians expect tribute from large companies. They threaten to pass legislation that would be harmful to the company, and then invite them to a "fundraiser".

Often it is not so obvious to tell the difference between "bribery" and "extortion".

"Often it is not so obvious to tell the difference between "bribery" and "extortion"."

Extortion is by far the more prevalent, and seldom charged.