The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

????? IIRC, the vote on PPACA was GOP 0, Dems 99% all in.

GOP had a single vote in favor of the PPACA, a congressman from Louisiana(?). I forget his name.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

????? IIRC, the vote on PPACA was GOP 0, Dems 99% all in.

Republican Governors are the only ones who decided to let the Feds set up the Exchanges.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

All together now, everyone: Corporations are NOT people and are NOT always treated like people. Corporations deserve equal protection under the law (i.e. the same as all other corporations) and individuals deserve equal protection to other individuals. A sole proprietor can make his own religious choices in his own free time, but when he is acting as the owner of the company, he has to follow the rules for corporations. I would argue that corporations have no soul (I know I'll get a lot of agreement there!) and therefore have no religious interest, and therefore do not have the right to freedom of religion. I would argue this even for religiously-affiliated corporations. Individuals have the right to freedom of religion, corporations do not - period.

Current Right Wing push is for Personhood to Zygote and Corp. I can't wait till it all passes through the Supreme Court and the chaos ensues.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

All together now, everyone: Corporations are NOT people and are NOT always treated like people. Corporations deserve equal protection under the law (i.e. the same as all other corporations) and individuals deserve equal protection to other individuals. A sole proprietor can make his own religious choices in his own free time, but when he is acting as the owner of the company, he has to follow the rules for corporations. I would argue that corporations have no soul (I know I'll get a lot of agreement there!) and therefore have no religious interest, and therefore do not have the right to freedom of religion. I would argue this even for religiously-affiliated corporations. Individuals have the right to freedom of religion, corporations do not - period.

Now do you understand why I make fun of them all the time?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Now do you understand why I make fun of them all the time?

But didn't the Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) define corporate personhood?

 

[LynahFan]

But didn't the Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) define corporate personhood?

If you are actually dumb enough to believe that the Dartmouth vs. Woodward opinion grants corporations 100% of the same rights and responsibilities as individual citizens, then you will be the first person ever on my ignore list. Let me know, okay?

For those keeping score at home, what the decision actually did was to establish that a corporate charter is a type of contract, and the government can't violate its sanctity, just as it cannot do with other types of contracts. Nothing whatsoever to do with personhood.

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

GOP had a single vote in favor of the PPACA, a congressman from Louisiana(?). I forget his name.

Samir Na... Naga... Nagannaworkhereanymore.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It seems to me that no one who has commented on the Citizens' United decision has grasped its essence properly.

The SCOTUS said nothing whatsoever about corporations being "people." that's just silly.

The issue was set inside a context regarding political speech / free speech rights and campaign spending limits. Whatever our emotions about that subject, let's follow a possible logical path:

1. When it comes to political speech and campaign spending, unions and corporations have rights equal to each other's in this context.

This assumption is the crux of the whole matter: if you accept it as valid, then all the rest follows inexorably. If not, then you have to justify why, when it comes to political speech and campaign spending, unions should have more rights than corporations (or the converse, for that matter, ha ha ha!).

Once we accept # 1., then:

2. Any political speech rights / campaign spending rights granted to one must necessarily be granted to the other, and any restrictions imposed upon one must necessarily also be imposed on the other.

This statement is a corollary of # 1. since # 1 has already been accepted, then # 2 must also be accepted. If you don't like # 2, you have to reject # 1.

3. SCOTUS was reluctant to remove political speech rights / campaign spending rights that unions currently exercise.

# 3 was not part of the case and was not at issue and was not argued. However, it is firmly established in the overall context.

Consequently, their conclusion: whatever political speech rights / campaign spending rights that unions have, corporations also have.


The only thing that Citizens' United did was assert a consistent set of rules for unions and corporations. That's it. The rest of the brouhaha was emotional hysteria.


I always thought that the government was supposed to be impartial in these matters, and not intervene to favor one party over the other, when it comes to political speech and campaign spending. The idea that those in power should be allowed to propagandize for themselves, while also suppressing the speech of those who disagree, in order to remain in power, isn't supposed to be part of our political system.

That operates equally on Richard Nixon using the IRS to target his political enemies, or the IRS in 2012 targeting only one side of the political debate. If you abhor one you must abhor both, or alternately, say you are fine with totalitarian government to the extent that your "side" is allowed to practice it with impunity while the other "side" is not allowed to practice it at all. that's also a realistic position to take, since it has been the history of much of the world for most of the time. I always thought we could aspire to better. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

As for your equal protection [claim], equal protection means similarly situated people should be treated similarly.

So perhaps I misunderstood you? It certainly sounds like you want to revise the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your position is logically consistent with wanting to impose limits on the right of the people peaceably to assemble: only certain forms of assembly are valid in your eyes, while other forms of assembly are not.

Most people don't know that the concept of "corporations" includes universities, hospitals, political organizations, and charitable foundations. In its broadest sense, a "corporation" is just about any organization that has an existence independent of its founders. Most people seem to think of "corporations" only as nefarious big business, which is a relatively small subset.

Corporations are not "people." They are a form of peaceable assembly. That is quite different.

How do we justify granting some forms of peacable assembly a different set of rights than other forms of peaceable assembly, when the text is clearcut and unambiguous: what part of "shall make no law" is that hard to understand?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So perhaps I misunderstood you? It certainly sounds like you want to revise the First Amendment:



Your position is logically consistent with wanting to impose limits on the right of the people peaceably to assemble: only certain forms of assembly are valid in your eyes, while other forms of assembly are not.

Most people don't know that the concept of "corporations" includes universities, hospitals, political organizations, and charitable foundations. In its broadest sense, a "corporation" is just about any organization that has an existence independent of its founders. Most people seem to think of "corporations" only as nefarious big business, which is a relatively small subset.

Corporations are not "people." They are a form of peaceable assembly. That is quite different.

How do we justify granting some forms of peacable assembly a different set of rights than other forms of peaceable assembly, when the text is clearcut and unambiguous: what part of "shall make no law" is that hard to understand?

Now you're just spewing bullshiat. Are you arguing equal protection, the first amendment's religious exercise clause, the first amendment's assembly clause, or some other random argument you read in the latest Murdoch Empire editorial?

No one is saying corporations are illegal or that people cannot assemble into them. But as you yourself said, corporations are not, themselves, people. It does not violate equal protection, or the first amendment, to treat corporations differently from actual people when the reason for the different treatment is that they are not people. It does not violate those laws to treat corporations differently than sole proprietorships in certain areas for the same reason; they are not the same.

I realize you think you've sprung some novel legal theory onto the world, but in reality you sound just one step removed from sovereign citizens.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Let's make it easier for y'all:

it seems to me that the "argument" that "corporations are people" is spurious. The underlying "argument" seems to be, what constitutional rights accrue to assemblages of people? The emotional quotient seems to be that it is okay to place more restrictions on "for profit" corporations than on "not-for-profit" corporations merely because the former are "for profit."

I do appreciate the emotional and moral attraction of such an argument. I won't dispute that. However, that does not make it a solid legal argument.

Even your moral and emotional argument becomes problematic when you examine the real world: there have been multiple criminal convictions over the past several years in NY state for legislators who set up a so-called not-for-profit, only to staff it with friends and relatives, and then steer state money to fund said not-for-profit. On paper, the not-for-profit sounds innocuous, perhaps even "noble," but in practice, between inflated salaries, and steering business to shell corporations from which goods and services are purchased at inflated prices, it becomes another form of graft. For example, one of the so-called not-for-profits purchased janitorial services at five times the normal rate from a company owned by a relative of the state senator who steered state money to said not-for-profit. The profit motive is just as strong in many not-for-profits as it is in for profit companies, it is just disguised better.

The crux of the core question remains: Do people somehow forfeit constitutional rights merely by banding together in organizations?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Now you're just spewing bullshiat. Are you arguing equal protection, the first amendment's religious exercise clause, the first amendment's assembly clause, or some other random argument you read in the latest Murdoch Empire editorial?

No one is saying corporations are illegal or that people cannot assemble into them. But as you yourself said, corporations are not, themselves, people. It does not violate equal protection, or the first amendment, to treat corporations differently from actual people when the reason for the different treatment is that they are not people. It does not violate those laws to treat corporations differently than sole proprietorships in certain areas for the same reason; they are not the same.

I realize you think you've sprung some novel legal theory onto the world, but in reality you sound just one step removed from sovereign citizens.

Agreed.

Let's look at FreshFish's claim, and I'll do my best from a law student's vantage point to simplify.

First, the claims that have basically no chance...
Equal Protection Claim - Treating those similarly situated, similarly...next
Assembly Claim - Congress isn't telling Hobby Lobby that they can't be a corporation...next

Then, the one claim that may have a chance
Religious Exercise Claim - The "interesting" point in the Hobby Lobby case is the fact that Hobby Lobby has included religious viewpoints in their articles of incorporation and the like...distinguishing itself from the vast majority of for-profit corporations. Essentially, Hobby Lobby is "different" than say 3M because they include their religious model in their articles of incorporation, are closed on Sunday...etc. Basically, Hobby Lobby practices what they preach...or at least that is how the Tenth Circuit saw the case...and basically what Judge Tymkovich (author of the majority/plurality opinion) told us in class.

Is that enough to win here? My guess is that if it is, it will be an extremely narrow holding.

However, I think the Court will rule that there is a distinction between non-profit and for-profit, and that RFRA (similar to the exemptions in other statutes like ADA and NLRA) doesn't extend to for-profit organizations. Therefore, choose to: 1) follow the proper channels to be a 501(c)(3), 2) provide birth control to your employees in your insurance coverage, 3) pay the penalty for not providing birth control, or 4) not give your employees health insurance, and pay that penalty (smaller than the penalty from #3).

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If you are actually dumb enough to believe that the Dartmouth vs. Woodward opinion grants corporations 100% of the same rights and responsibilities as individual citizens, then you will be the first person ever on my ignore list. Let me know, okay?

For those keeping score at home, what the decision actually did was to establish that a corporate charter is a type of contract, and the government can't violate its sanctity, just as it cannot do with other types of contracts. Nothing whatsoever to do with personhood.

Put me on ignore you sanctimonious Ivy League bottom orifice. If you disagree with a position, then disagree nicely and point out the possible areas of disagreement. Or did they teach you that you are a morally superior person just because you graduated from an Ivy League school (or was it the SUNY side?).

However, you can't make a contract with a non-person. Therefore if you make a contract with a corporation, then it implies that the corporation is a person. Right?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Put me on ignore you sanctimonious Ivy League bottom orifice. If you disagree with a position, then disagree nicely and point out the possible areas of disagreement. Or did they teach you that you are a morally superior person just because you graduated from an Ivy League school (or was it the SUNY side?).

However, you can't make a contract with a non-person. Therefore if you make a contract with a corporation, then it implies that the corporation is a person. Right?

No, you can make contracts with entities that are not people, but those entities will represent either a person or group of people. An example of a non-corporate entity and a person signing a contract is when you enlist for military service you're signing a contract with the government. Nobody has ever argued that the government is a person.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

However, you can't make a contract with a non-person. Therefore if you make a contract with a corporation, then it implies that the corporation is a person. Right?

I just start with a nice false premise, mix in a helping of circularity, and voila'--cream puffs.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The crux of the core question remains: Do people somehow forfeit constitutional rights merely by banding together in organizations?

No, but organizations which themselves are purely legal constructs do not inherently gain constitutional rights, either.

I also think it's hilarious that an actuary (and, based on his postings here, a poor one who doesn't understand basic mathematical concepts) is trying to tell multiple lawyers what a good legal argument is.

it seems to me that the "argument" that "corporations are not people" is spurious.

Then why did you yourself say that they are not people in your immediately preceeding post?

Corporations are not "people." They are a form of peaceable assembly. That is quite different.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

However, you can't make a contract with a non-person.

Sure you can. People contract with governments, estates, and trusts all the time. They are no more a person than a corporation.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I own and run Burd, Inc., a contracting business. I am the president and sole shareholder. Under Burd, Inc's name, I contract with you to build you a garage, and I fark it up. You sue Burd, Inc. and me individually, for money damages. You are not represented and sign the complaint yourself.

I do not want to hire a lawyer either, thieving bossturds, so I file an answer that denies all the allegations on behalf of both Burd, Inc. and myself individually. I also allege that you have filed a frivolous claim against me, since I was not a party to the contract.

After a month or two passes, you file for default judgment against Burd, Inc. saying the corporation failed to appear and file an answer to your complaint. I respond by saying I did file an answer on behalf of both myself and the corporation.

The judge grants default judgment in your favor against Burd, Inc., stating that I can appear and answer on my own behalf but that I am not the corporation and am also not an attorney licensed to practice law, so Burd, Inc. has not legally appeared to answer the complaint. No officer or shareholder can appear pro se for Burd, Inc. Burd, Inc. is a person under the law in some respects, but there is no actual "person" there who can appear in corporal form and defend him or herself. Certainly, an officer can sit at the table as the embodiment of the corporation along with counsel, but in my jurisdiction no human being embodies the corporation to the extent that that person can appear pro se as the corporation.

But I can appear pro se for myself, so I argue that only Burd, Inc. can be liable--not me--because it was Burd, Inc. that contracted with you and Burd, Inc. is a separate person under the law. You argue that the corporation is nothing more than my alter ego, that I have treated the corporation's assets and obligations as my own, so the law should not allow me to be protected by the corporate veil. If you have no facts or law to support your claim that the corporation is nothing more than my alter ego, I might win my frivolous claim claim. If you can prove that Burd, Inc. is nothing more than my alter ego, you might win a money judgment against me personally, even though I was not a party to your contract, and it was another "person" who contracted with you.

Now, if you filed the complaint yourself on behalf of your auto repair business, Auto Fix, LLC, in whose name you signed the contract with Burd, Inc., we have even more fun.

Just insisting that corporations and LLCs are "persons" for all intents and purposes is uselessly simplistic and will not add any understanding to what is a policy driven and complicated tangle.

That last comment was pretty much bullshat.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Sure you can. People contract with governments, estates, and trusts all the time. They are no more a person than a corporation.

And corporations make contracts with each other and with individuals all the time. In fact, there's an entire class of corporations who make contracts so frequently that they've come to be known as...wait for it..."contractors." The enforceability of contracts between businesses is a core foundation of our economy.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

However, I think the Court will rule that there is a distinction between non-profit and for-profit

When we are talking about First Amendment rights, how does this distinction apply to newspapers, radio, television? Certainly you are not suggesting that for-profit media companies lose "freedom of the press" merely by being "for profit"??

I do understand the emotional and intuitive appeal of saying something like what follows, regarding "corporations" and their constitutional rights:
-- "media" companies have one set of rights.
-- churches, temples, mosques, synagogs, religious orders have another set of rights
-- universities, hospitals, museums, libraries, and foundations have another set of rights
-- political parties and political advocacy groups have another set of rights
-- non-media for-profit companies and labor unions have another set of rights


The problem with this line of thought becomes "who determines what those rights are?" It cannot be the government, otherwise we have just opened the door for government censorship. Merely by allowing "media companies" to be defined at all allows for a definition to restrict certain groups from that category, thereby restricting their free speech rights.


Well, then, you might reply: suppose I reluctantly am forced to concede that all corporations must have free speech rights (if not, then we have automatically restricted them, by definition) -- That doesn't necessarily mean that all corporations must necessarily have each and every one of the First Amendment rights. Well, the last sentence is your argument, not mine. How do you go about defining which corporations have which First Amendment rights, which corporations have some First Amendment rights but not other First Amendment rights, and how do you do so without granting the government the power to censor people in some form or fashion?