Obamacare Recreates the First Estate

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

Does one have a Constitutional right to form a corporation?

Yes. First amendment protects freedom of assembly.

If the government requires individuals to incorporate in order to operate as a group (e.g. open a bank account in the name of the group), then it should have no reason to prevent a group from incorporating.

So you're saying the New York Times has freedom of press only because they claimed that right in their articles of incorporation. Bizarre.

I guess going forward anyone who incorporates could add one or two sentences to their hundreds of pages of articles saying "This corporation exists to manifest the moral convictions of its owners".

That's a bizarre world.


Edit: This would eventually lead to the "mother-may-I" clause. New York Times enjoys their first amendment right. But sorry Hobby Lobby, you didn't say "mother-may-I". You forgot to put a clause in your articles of incorporation claiming your rights.

Originally posted by techsouth
Yes. First amendment protects freedom of assembly.

If the government requires individuals to incorporate in order to operate as a group (e.g. open a bank account in the name of the group), then it should have no reason to prevent a group from incorporating.

So you're saying the New York Times has freedom of press only because they claimed that right ...[text shortened]... corporation exists to manifest the moral convictions of its owners".

That's a bizarre world.

When you redefine private business as public you end up with this kind of crap.

A little history; at the time of the adoption of the Constitution not a single State had a general incorporation law i.e. any corporation had to be formed by a separate legislative act which the legislature was free to adopt or withhold at their pleasure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_incorporation_law

Originally posted by techsouth
Yes. First amendment protects freedom of assembly.

If the government requires individuals to incorporate in order to operate as a group (e.g. open a bank account in the name of the group), then it should have no reason to prevent a group from incorporating.

So you're saying the New York Times has freedom of press only because they claimed that right ...[text shortened]... corporation exists to manifest the moral convictions of its owners".

That's a bizarre world.

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 corporate law. Whether a State allows any assertions in the charter to have force of law is up to the State's corporation law.

No1,

You are a real piece of work. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means nothing to you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A little history; at the time of the adoption of the Constitution not a single State had a general incorporation law i.e. any corporation had to be formed by a separate legislative act which the legislature was free to adopt or withhold at their pleasure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_incorporation_law

Copying edit in case it was missed...

Edit from above: This would eventually lead to the "mother-may-I" clause. New York Times enjoys their first amendment right. But sorry Hobby Lobby, you didn't say "mother-may-I". You forgot to put a clause in your articles of incorporation claiming your rights.

...
So let's suppose the owners of Hobby Lobby created a new corporation for the same purpose as the old, plus the intent of operating according to the moral convictions of its owners. Then the old Hobby Lobby transferred all assets to the new Hobby Lobby.

Would they then have the right to not provide birth control according to their moral convictions?

NY State law is typical:

Each corporation, subject to any limitations provided in this chapter or any other statute of this state or its certificate of incorporation, shall have power in furtherance of its corporate purposes:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/BSC/2/202

There follows a detailed list of corporate powers allowed under the law.

Hobby Lobby's corporate purposes have nothing to do with religion and therefore the idea that it has "freedom of religion" is quite absurd.

Originally posted by Eladar
No1,

You are a real piece of work. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means nothing to you.

I guess the Framers were wrong too in not extending such to corporations.

Originally posted by no1marauder
NY State law is typical:

Each corporation, subject to any limitations provided in this chapter or any other statute of this state or its certificate of incorporation, shall have [b]power in furtherance of its corporate purposes:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/BSC/2/202

There follows a detailed list of corporate ...[text shortened]... ng to do with religion and therefore the idea that it has "freedom of religion" is quite absurd.[/b]

You might want to quote Oklahoma law.

Originally posted by techsouth
Copying edit in case it was missed...

Edit from above: This would eventually lead to the "mother-may-I" clause. New York Times enjoys their first amendment right. But sorry Hobby Lobby, you didn't say "mother-may-I". You forgot to put a clause in your articles of incorporation claiming your rights.

...
So let's suppose the owners of Hobby Lobby crea ...[text shortened]... ey [b]then have the right to not provide birth control according to their moral convictions?[/b]

No. Such a claimed purpose has nothing to do with a for profit corporation. Such a provision would have no force.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess the Framers were wrong too in not extending such to corporations.

Did they exempt corporations? Or is that simply what you want them to do?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to all and is the default position.

Originally posted by Eladar
Did they exempt corporations? Or is that simply what you want them to do?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to all and is the default position.

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.

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.

It would also apply to all people using those things.

A privately owned business is privately owned by people. What you force the business to do you force the people to do. People do not need to give up their rights to make a profit.

Originally posted by Eladar
It would also apply to all people using those things.

A privately owned business is privately owned by people. What you force the business to do you force the people to do. People do not need to give up their rights to make a profit.

The whole point of incorporation is to create a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners. Your argument is "a have your cake and eat it too" one; I want to form a corporation so I am not personally liable for its debts but I insist that as far as my constitutional rights are concerned the corporation is a mere extension of me.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. Such a claimed purpose has nothing to do with a for profit corporation. Such a provision would have no force.

But the New York Times is a for profit corporation. I thought you said their freedom of press was protected.

Since they are a for profit company, you must be consistent. Either Hobby Lobby has constitutional rights based on the first amendment or the New York Times does not. Which is it?