Obamacare Recreates the First Estate

Originally posted by no1marauder
Further response is pointless; you can't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts.

I understand the most basic concept:

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Corporations are not "made up of people".

So in your opinion, the New York Times should not have freedom of press?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Corporations are not "made up of people".

How about "a group of citizens" then? Is that not essentially what we're talking about?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
How about "a group of citizens" then? Is that not essentially what we're talking about?

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.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

Is the State required to allow corporations? Did they exist in the Natural State?

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.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
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.

Literalism. I guess yelling "Fire!" in the theater is protected speech.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Literalism. I guess yelling "Fire!" in the theater is protected speech.

The 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.

Let me get this clear, are you suggesting the New York Times is not protected by the first amendment?

Originally posted by techsouth
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]

SG was relying on the "no law" language and that makes my response relevant. Perhaps you should read the posts I am responding to.

Originally posted by techsouth
So in your opinion, the New York Times should not have freedom of press?

Could the State of New York abolish corporations tomorrow if it so chose?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could the State of New York abolish corporations tomorrow if it so chose?

So you're not going to answer?

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.

Originally posted by techsouth
So you're not going to answer?

Answer mine. I just answered yours.

Does one have a Constitutional right to form a corporation?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Answer mine. I just answered yours.

Does one have a Constitutional right to form a corporation?

No you didn't.

Edit: my apologies. I had to read all the way to the end of the second paragraph.

Originally posted by techsouth
No you didn't.

Typical right winger.

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?