Obamacare Recreates the First Estate

Originally posted by no1marauder
I read the 10th Circuit decision which relied heavily on the "Dictionary Act". The issue remains whether "the context" of the statute " indicates otherwise". That will presumably be decided by the SCOTUS.

The 10th Circuit relied on a lot of things, like the SCOTUS's freedom of association jurisprudence on corporations. Funny, I mentioned the freedom of association earlier and you accused me of being off topic. Nincompoop.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
The 10th Circuit relied on a lot of things, like the SCOTUS's freedom of association jurisprudence on corporations. Funny, I mentioned the freedom of association earlier and you accused me of being off topic. Nincompoop.

I realize you're upset about getting schooled in the other thread, but really you're acting like a petulant child.

We'll see how relevant the SCOTUS finds such cases in interpreting a statute.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
The 10th Circuit relied on a lot of things, like the SCOTUS's freedom of association jurisprudence on corporations. Funny, I mentioned the freedom of association earlier and you accused me of being off topic. Nincompoop.

Of course, the Third Circuit has already decided that " that for-
profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise".

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/13-1144/13-1144-2013-07-26.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
I realize you're upset about getting schooled in the other thread, but really you're acting like a petulant child.

We'll see how relevant the SCOTUS finds such cases in interpreting a statute.

I did not get "schooled" in the other thread. I am not persuaded that the Hamilton view is the correct view of Art. 1, Sec. 8 when only 30 something percent of the Constitution Convention delegates and 5 percent of the State Ratifiers (guesstimate) participated in the national bank vote. And only 55% of said delegates and state ratifiers supported the national bank, according to your statistics which I did not check. In other words, the sample size is not big enough and the vote was underwhelming anyways.

I did not respond earlier because I was busy with Christmas and New Years. shrug.

Here is an interesting website. The notes from this particular day helps us understand Madison's understanding of Sec. 8.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0914-2/

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
I did not get "schooled" in the other thread. I am not persuaded that the Hamilton view is the correct view of Art. 1, Sec. 8 when only 30 something percent of the Constitution Convention delegates and 5 percent of the State Ratifiers (guesstimate) participated in the national bank vote. And only 55% of said delegates and state ratifiers supported the ...[text shortened]... ison's understanding of Sec. 8.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0914-2/

About 1/2 of the Framers gave their opinion by official action and of those 68% were for the Bank. I respect Madison's opinion, but it was a minority view. Madison himself later abandoned that position and signed the bill creating the Second Bank of the US.

Originally posted by no1marauder
About 1/2 of the Framers gave their opinion by official action and of those 68% were for the Bank. I respect Madison's opinion, but it was a minority view. Madison himself later abandoned that position and signed the bill creating the Second Bank of the US.

Stated differently, 33% of the Framers were for the Bank. 19% of the Framers were against the Bank. 48% of the Framers are unaccounted for.

Moreover, we do not even know if the States would have ratified the Hamilton construction of the Constitution if those powers had been expressly granted. The Constitution, as written, was barely ratified in four of the thirteen states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Seven_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Can you just admit that your argument is a gimmick?

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Stated differently, 33% of the Framers were for the Bank. 19% of the Framers were against the Bank. 48% of the Framers are unaccounted for.

Moreover, we do not even know if the States would have ratified the Hamilton construction of the Constitution if those powers had been expressly granted. The Constitution, as written, was barely ratified in ...[text shortened]... e_Seven_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Can you just admit that your argument is a gimmick?

LMAO! Can you just admit that the weight of the evidence is against your claim? I gave every possible advantage to it - those who opposed the Constitution's votes were considered of equal weight in Congress, the Senate vote was on a 25 year charter even though others voted for a shorter one and I assumed that those who voted against it all considered it unconstitutional though that is far from certain - and still the expansive view of the enumerated powers prevailed. What is your evidence to the contrary? Nothing but guesswork and the views of a few who lost the argument.

My argument is based on original intent as expressed by the Framers, the First Congress, President Washington, his Cabinet, etc. etc. etc. For you to call it a "gimmick" is consistent with your childish petulance, but not with any type of reasoned construction of the Constitution based on original intent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
...and still the expansive view of the enumerated powers prevailed. What is your evidence to the contrary?

...For you to call it a "gimmick" is consistent with your childish petulance, but not with any type of reasoned construction of the Constitution based on original intent.

I will repeat my argument for the umpteenth time that the sample size is too small to be controlling...

Additionally, I provided a link to Madison's notes from the Constitution Convention earlier that you totally ignored. 🙄

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0914-2/

Docr. FRANKLIN moved15 to add after the words “post roads” Art I. Sect. 8. “a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary”

Mr. WILSON 2ded. the motion

Mr. SHERMAN objected. The expence in such cases will fall on the U. States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.

Mr. WILSON. Instead of being an expence to the U.S. they may be made a source of revenue.

Mr. MADISON suggested an enlargement of the motion into a power “to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require & the legislative provisions of individual States may be incompetent.” His primary object was however to secure an easy communication between the States which the free intercourse now to be opened, seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones as far as possible ought to follow.

Mr. RANDOLPH 2ded. the proposition

Mr. KING thought the power unnecessary.

Mr. WILSON. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the general welfare.

Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philada. & New York, It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.

Mr. WILSON mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals, the communication with the Western Settlements. As to Banks he did not think with Mr. King that the power in that point of view would excite the prejudices & parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies they are already included in the power to regulate trade.

Col: MASON was for limiting the power to the single case of Canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr. Wilson.

The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited to the case of canals,

N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C no. Geo. ay.

The other part fell of course, as including the power rejected.

The delegates at the CC discussed granting Congress powers relating to canals, banks, and charters of incorporation. They ultimately decided not to grant Congress those powers. 🙄

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
I will repeat my argument for the umpteenth time that the sample size is too small to be controlling...

Additionally, I provided a link to Madison's notes from the Constitution Convention earlier that you totally ignored. 🙄

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0914-2/

[quote]Docr. FRANKLIN moved15 to add after the words “post ...[text shortened]... and charters of incorporation. They ultimately decided not to grant Congress those powers. 🙄

That just shows that they rejected your reading; the majority felt, as King said, that an explicit granting of such power was "unnecessary". The enumerated powers were sufficiently broad enough to cover the chartering of a National Bank (and by further implication, a Social Security system). Wilson specifically stated that when he said that mercantile monopolies were included in the power to regulate trade. Mason's view to the contrary is entitled to little weight as he wound up refusing to sign the Constitution.

19 of the 39 Framers is "too small a sample size"????????????????????
You must hate Gallup and other polls.

EDIT: Rufus King voted for the Bank Bill. Connecticut voted against the explicit declaration you have cited to, but all three of their delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Sherman, Ellsworth, Johnson, all voted for the Bank Bill. This is consistent with my argument and guts yours.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That just shows that they rejected your reading; the majority felt, as King said, that an explicit granting of such power was "unnecessary". The enumerated powers were sufficiently broad enough to cover the chartering of a National Bank (and by further implication, a Social Security system). Wilson specifically stated that when he said that mercantile mo ...[text shortened]... worth, Johnson, all voted for the Bank Bill. This is consistent with my argument and guts yours.

Alright I'm back!

I want to focus on two points from your post for now.

1. Mason's view to the contrary is entitled to little weight as he wound up refusing to sign the Constitution.

Let's forget that Mason was present for virtually all of the Convention--meaning he debated and voted on virtually all of the issues at the Convention--, yes, let's forget those facts about Mason and move on to your second point.

2. Connecticut voted against the explicit declaration you have cited to, but all three of their delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Sherman, Ellsworth (did not sign either, but is nonetheless entitled to weight under No1Logic), Johnson, all voted for the Bank Bill. (Edits Mine)

So because Ellsworth voted on the Bank Bill, he is entitled to weight even though he did not sign the Constitution. Mason, on the other hand, does not support your view; therefore, he is not entitled to weight because he did not sign the Constitution. Do you have anymore nonsensical result-based-reasoning for us No1?

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Alright I'm back!

I want to focus on two points from your post for now.

1. Mason's view to the contrary is entitled to little weight as he wound up refusing to sign the Constitution.

Let's forget that Mason was present for virtually all of the Convention--meaning he debated and voted on virtually all of the issues at the Convent ...[text shortened]... t sign the Constitution[/i]. Do you have anymore nonsensical result-based-reasoning for us No1?

Congratulations; you managed to find one nitpick. Ellsworth did leave the Convention at the end of August.

Unlike Mason, he actually supported the Constitution and surely would have signed if he remained. He was also an important delegate at the Convention; from his wiki article:

Ellsworth took an active part in the proceedings beginning on June 20, when he proposed the use of the name the United States to identify the government under the authority of the Constitution. The words "United States" had already been used in the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation as well as Thomas Paine's The American Crisis. It was Ellsworth's proposal to retain the earlier wording to sustain the emphasis on a federation rather than a single national entity. Three weeks earlier, on May 30, 1787, Edmund Randolph of Virginia had moved to create a "national government" consisting of a supreme legislative, an executive and a judiciary. Ellsworth accepted Randolph's notion of a threefold division, but moved to strike the phrase "national government." From this day forward the "United States" was the official title used in the Convention to designate the government, and this usage has remained in effect ever since. The complete name, "the United States of America," had already been featured by Paine, and its inclusion in the Constitution was the work of Gouverneur Morris when he made the final editorial changes in the Constitution.
Ellsworth played a major role in the passage of the Connecticut Plan. During debate on the Great Compromise, often described as the Connecticut Compromise, he joined his fellow Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman in proposing the bicameral arrangement in which members of the Senate would be elected by state legislatures as indicated in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. Ellsworth's version of the compromise was adopted by the Convention, but it was later revised by Amendment XVII substituting a popular vote similar to that used for the House of Representatives.
To gain the passage of the Connecticut Plan its proponents needed support of three southern states, Georgia and the two Carolinas, complementing the small state coalition of the North. It came as no surprise that Ellsworth favored the Three-Fifths Compromise on the enumeration of slaves and opposed the abolition of the foreign slave trade. Stressing that he had no slaves, Ellsworth spoke twice before the Convention, on August 21 and 22, in favor of slavery being abolished.[6]
Along with James Wilson, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, and Nathaniel Gorham, Ellsworth served on the Committee of Detail which prepared the first draft of the Constitution based on resolutions already passed by the Convention. All Convention deliberations were interrupted from July 26 to August 6, 1787, while the Committee of Detail completed its task. The two preliminary drafts that survive as well as the text of the Constitution submitted to the Convention were in the handwriting of Wilson or Randolph. However, Ellsworth's role is made clear by his 53 contributions to the Convention as a whole from August 6 to 23, when he left for business reasons. As James Madison tabulated in his Records, only Madison and Gouverneur Morris spoke more than Ellsworth during those sixteen days.
Though Ellsworth left the Convention near the end of August and didn't sign the final document, he wrote the Letters of a Landholder to promote its ratification. He also played a dominant role in Connecticut's 1788 ratification convention, when he emphasized that judicial review guaranteed federal sovereignty. It seems more than a coincidence that both he and Wilson served as members of the Committee of Detail without mentioning judicial review in the initial draft of the Constitution, but then stressed its central importance at their ratifying conventions just a year preceding its inclusion by Ellsworth in the Judiciary Act of 1789.


However, you may disregard Ellsworth if you so choose. Please explain how that impacts the overall point I made. Sherman and Johnson were present for the "corporation" vote, voted against the motion but voted for the Bank Bill showing that they did not believe an explicit declaration that the government could form corporations that were "necessary and proper" to fulfill the enumerated powers was required, as it is under your Constitutional theory.

EDIT: Actually even your nitpick fails. I stated:

Mason's view to the contrary is entitled to little weight as he wound up refusing to sign the Constitution.


Ellsworth did not "refuse" to sign the Constitution; he left a few weeks before the the close of it but he was an ardent supporter at the Connecticut ratifying Convention and wrote articles espousing ratification. By contrast, Mason explicitly refused to sign and then opposed the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying Convention. Opponents of the Constitution's views regarding what it means are not generally given equal weight to supporter's views for fairly obvious reasons.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A corporation is no more "made up of people" than a shovel is. It's a tool created by people to perform certain functions thought to be useful, but the idea that it would have any "rights" that were not specifically and explicitly granted to it is bizarre fetishism.

Name a corporation that is devoid of people?

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

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.

Government didn't exist in your "natural state".

Originally posted by no1marauder
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?

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 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]... ther-may-I". You forgot to put a clause in your articles of incorporation claiming your rights.

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.