Politics and Religion

There are a couple of points that are really funny if you think about it
St. Croix 1046 reads
posted

First, we are dealing with a product (contraceptives - specifically the pill) that is priced in the $20 to $70 monthly range. If we were talking cancer and coverage, then OK, but we are talking about a product that is already relatively cheap, and would get cheaper if it was moved from an RX to OTC. Second, we have this stupid polarizing issue, as you can see  by the reaction on this board, which could go away in a nanosecond, but they keep bitching about it.  

As I understand, the American College of OB/GYN recommended over a year ago to move the pill to OTC. I would think the Democrats would focus on this because it gives all women cheap access. But they have this bug up their ass about having Washington involved in healthcare.  

Actually the best solution is to get off this employer provided health benefit that is basically a relic from WWII. Let individuals buy plans on the open marketplace like you buy auto or home insurance policies. You've mentioned allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, but just opening the marketplace to 300M+ consumers, you'll get more choices, lower prices, and more importantly the end of this stupid debate between the religious right and progressives. Plus I wouldn't have to listen to the likes of Sandra Fluke.
Posted By: JackDunphy
I wonder how the ACOG came to the belief that the contraindications issue would not be a problem? I guess they have studies to back that up to relieve their qualms they must have had.  
   
 Also curious as to what the FDA's take is on OTC contraceptive pills and why they have put the nix on it to date.

DA_Flex2668 reads

Here is an opinion place that captures a lot of my sentiment regarding the Hobby Lobby Decision.  Unlike most of the media, who has been focusing on the contraceptive ramifications, I tend to focus on the expansion of the concept of corporate personhood and the dangers of it.  In one of my earlier postings, I stated that there was no difference between a closely held coorpration and other types.  And legally there isn't.  Corporations are formed to protect the assets of the owner. I formed a corporation for my own business so that if the business ever gets used, my personal assets are protected. What that means is there is an implicit legal separation between me and the business.  That mean that the business must adhere to sate and federal regulations etc,etc. it also means that I create and maintain the philosophy to execute that business so long as it adheres to applicable laws.  A business owner can choose to run the business ethically or not, treat employees like assets or not, pay a decent salary or not.  What the this case did, along with Citizens United, was further blurr the lines between business and owner and push further along the concept of corporate personhood. If we accept that corporations exists, largely in part to protect the owners assets, how can we not legally hold corporate owners responsible financially for the mistakes that the business entity makes?  It is indeed a rare occasion where the owners of a large corporation are legally held liable for the behavior of a company. How many corporate executives went to jail because of the banking collapse that they caused....none! Furthermore, this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Would we have expected the same ruling if this suit was brought forth by a Muslim owner?  Would the so-called conservatives be hailing this decision if a corporation chose to impose Sharia type rules on it employees...I think not.  They would be screaming from the top of every roof that sharia law is going to be imposed on Christains. In addition, this personhood status now allows corporations to pick and choose what regulations violate their religious sensibilities.  How is a court to determine when a rule or regulation significantly burdens a corporation's religious sincerity, when the corporations main objective is to make profit?  The answer is that they can't.  I can certainly see a occasion where a corpration could challenge a regulation on religious grounds just to boost profit or revenue. Justice Ginsburg is correct that a Pandora's box has been opened and it has to be closed.  It can be closed by reaffirming the corporations are not persons!  This is a dangerous ruling for all of us.

Posted By: DA_Flex
Here is an opinion place that captures a lot of my sentiment regarding the Hobby Lobby Decision.  Unlike most of the media, who has been focusing on the contraceptive ramifications, I tend to focus on the expansion of the concept of corporate personhood and the dangers of it.  In one of my earlier postings, I stated that there was no difference between a closely held coorpration and other types.  And legally there isn't.  Corporations are formed to protect the assets of the owner. I formed a corporation for my own business so that if the business ever gets used, my personal assets are protected. What that means is there is an implicit legal separation between me and the business.  That mean that the business must adhere to sate and federal regulations etc,etc. it also means that I create and maintain the philosophy to execute that business so long as it adheres to applicable laws.  A business owner can choose to run the business ethically or not, treat employees like assets or not, pay a decent salary or not.  What the this case did, along with Citizens United, was further blurr the lines between business and owner and push further along the concept of corporate personhood. If we accept that corporations exists, largely in part to protect the owners assets, how can we not legally hold corporate owners responsible financially for the mistakes that the business entity makes?  It is indeed a rare occasion where the owners of a large corporation are legally held liable for the behavior of a company. How many corporate executives went to jail because of the banking collapse that they caused....none! Furthermore, this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Would we have expected the same ruling if this suit was brought forth by a Muslim owner?  Would the so-called conservatives be hailing this decision if a corporation chose to impose Sharia type rules on it employees...I think not.  They would be screaming from the top of every roof that sharia law is going to be imposed on Christains. In addition, this personhood status now allows corporations to pick and choose what regulations violate their religious sensibilities.  How is a court to determine when a rule or regulation significantly burdens a corporation's religious sincerity, when the corporations main objective is to make profit?  The answer is that they can't.  I can certainly see a occasion where a corpration could challenge a regulation on religious grounds just to boost profit or revenue. Justice Ginsburg is correct that a Pandora's box has been opened and it has to be closed.  It can be closed by reaffirming the corporations are not persons!  This is a dangerous ruling for all of us.

DA_Flex556 reads

Check the link....

Posted By: JohnyComeAlready
 
   
Posted By: DA_Flex
Here is an opinion place that captures a lot of my sentiment regarding the Hobby Lobby Decision.  Unlike most of the media, who has been focusing on the contraceptive ramifications, I tend to focus on the expansion of the concept of corporate personhood and the dangers of it.  In one of my earlier postings, I stated that there was no difference between a closely held coorpration and other types.  And legally there isn't.  Corporations are formed to protect the assets of the owner. I formed a corporation for my own business so that if the business ever gets used, my personal assets are protected. What that means is there is an implicit legal separation between me and the business.  That mean that the business must adhere to sate and federal regulations etc,etc. it also means that I create and maintain the philosophy to execute that business so long as it adheres to applicable laws.  A business owner can choose to run the business ethically or not, treat employees like assets or not, pay a decent salary or not.  What the this case did, along with Citizens United, was further blurr the lines between business and owner and push further along the concept of corporate personhood. If we accept that corporations exists, largely in part to protect the owners assets, how can we not legally hold corporate owners responsible financially for the mistakes that the business entity makes?  It is indeed a rare occasion where the owners of a large corporation are legally held liable for the behavior of a company. How many corporate executives went to jail because of the banking collapse that they caused....none! Furthermore, this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Would we have expected the same ruling if this suit was brought forth by a Muslim owner?  Would the so-called conservatives be hailing this decision if a corporation chose to impose Sharia type rules on it employees...I think not.  They would be screaming from the top of every roof that sharia law is going to be imposed on Christains. In addition, this personhood status now allows corporations to pick and choose what regulations violate their religious sensibilities.  How is a court to determine when a rule or regulation significantly burdens a corporation's religious sincerity, when the corporations main objective is to make profit?  The answer is that they can't.  I can certainly see a occasion where a corpration could challenge a regulation on religious grounds just to boost profit or revenue. Justice Ginsburg is correct that a Pandora's box has been opened and it has to be closed.  It can be closed by reaffirming the corporations are not persons!  This is a dangerous ruling for all of us.

Will fair well in The United States of America.

 
Islamic economics refers to the economic system that conforms to Islamic scripture and traditions. Islamic finance belongs to the category of religious ethical finance, like Christian finance. The central features of an Islamic economy are summarized as the following: (1) "behavioral norms and moral foundations" derived from the Quran and Sunnah; (2) Zakat tax as the basis of Islamic fiscal policy, and (3) prohibition of interest.

Islamic movements and authors generally describe an Islamic economic system as neither socialist nor capitalist, but as a "third way," an ideal mean with none of the drawbacks of the other two systems.

To reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, Islam encourages trade, discourages the hoarding of wealth and outlaws usury [8] (the term is riba in Arabic). Therefore wealth is taxed through zakat, but trade is not taxed. Profit sharing and venture capital where the lender is also exposed to risk are acceptable. Hoarding of food for speculation is also discouraged Grabbing other people's land is also prohibited.

 
Also read the post colonial era dissertation, along with public, state, and public property.  

 

Explain how Islamic(Sharia) law, is relevant to your argument

""Explain how Islamic(Sharia) law, is relevant to your argument.""

Its not. It's just a hysterical attempt to deflect. Whether it's sharia law or hard core churchianity, employees are free to quit.

lefties want rights without responsibility

JackDunphy493 reads

Liberals WOULDNT have a problem with a corporation embracing Sharia?  Isnt Sharia the ultimate in the "War on Women"? lol

Conservatives AND Liberals would join together in that case and the free market would take care of the problem, word would get out, boycotts, walk offs, massive protests, etc.

If all THAT failed, then, like you said, people could quit.

DA just doesn't get that the government causes more problems than it solves. Obama and his admin are living proof just how true that is.

Being from a diverse country with 100 million Muslims, Sharia Law states that anyone who does not follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed should be persecuted.    To put it in a way Americans can understand, "it is my religion or you are banished".    To explain further, "my religion trumps yours and your beliefs" because my religion is superior and I control you".

What the Supreme Court decision really says in the case of HL is:

"The religion of the owner is supreme as long as you work for him and his religion and his beliefs trumps your religion and your beliefs".    

So who says we here in the US have no Sharia Law?

""this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.""

NONSENSE.  

No matter how hard you want to twist this, NOT including death inducing drugs in the mix for a health care plan is not IMPOSING anything. Indeed, the one doing the imposing is the Big Daddy Federal Gubbymunt. Let's not forget the sequence of events here.  
The belief that life begins at conception is as old as man himself.
Science comes along and develops a way in which that life can be extinguished by talking a pill, and society, for the sake of convenience, changes the meaning of life.
Corporations are free to offer health care OR NOT.
O'fuckingBama and the Libtards decide they know best and THEY IMPOSE ACA on everyone, INCLUDING corporations and further, that the packages including death inducing drugs.

Now WHO is "Imposing" on WHO?????

 Further, you conveniently ignore the difference between a closely held and a widely held corporation. With a widely held there are boards of directors elected by the shareholders who then hire the executives that run the corporations. No so with closely helds. The space between the owner and the decision, whatever it may be is wildly different.

Lastly, your example of Sharia law falls on it's face because employees at will are free to quit. Just like Hobby Lobby employees that MUST have death inducing drugs included in their HC package are free to quit as well

DA_Flex465 reads

It's amazing how the conservative mind cannot see beyond their ideology.  You are focusing on the ACA and the role of government instead of the amount of power this ruling has extended to for-profit corporations as I clearly described in my post.  Let me try to enlighten the unenlightened once again.

Firstly, other than the status of the stock, there is no legal difference between a public or closely held corporation.  A closely held corporation could have 1 or 100 or 1000 shareholders and the shares are privately held.  Other than that, there is no difference in the requirement to adhere to appropriate state, local and federal laws.  Closely held corporations have no SEC reporting requirements.   Now that I've explained this to you, tell me how or why this status should allow a major corporation, or any corporation for that matter, should have person hood rights extended to it.

So I raised a scenario in which Sharia (or name your favorite religion) philosophies could be imposed within the workplace.  Based upon this ruling, I could impose in my company a requirement that all employees stop work 5 times a day and face to Mecca for prayer. Now, I could simply sue the gov't and state that anti-discrimination laws pose an undue burden on my company's religious belief.    Your answer, I believe, would be hell yea pray away, if the Christians don't like it, they don't have to work there.  Sure, its a far fetch scenario, but one that could happen as a result of this ruling. You're also implying that employees have no rights, especially in closely held corporations.  Since when, in this country, does the religious rights of one outweigh the rights of another?

As I pointed out earlier, how is the court supposed to test for this substantial religious burden?  It has been reported that the Hobby Lobby 401K plans invested in companies that produces the drugs/devices they objected to.  I mean, if they were really so concerned about the fetus, why did they allow 401K funds to these companies.  What we will have is a patchwork of rulings, with little or no consistency as to how the law is applied.  

With Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, corporations have been granted another tool that will allow them to not only dominate the political landscape, but the social one as well.  These privately held corporations are not Mom and Pop shops, a good majority have thousands of employees as well as hundreds of millions in annual revenue.  You tell me how much the average Joe will have this country? We will have none...and conservatives like you fail to realized it even though you rail against big government every day.  You would shoot yourself in the foot if it advances your ideology.

Posted By: NeedleDick, the BugFucker
""this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.""  
   
 NONSENSE.  
   
 No matter how hard you want to twist this, NOT including death inducing drugs in the mix for a health care plan is not IMPOSING anything. Indeed, the one doing the imposing is the Big Daddy Federal Gubbymunt. Let's not forget the sequence of events here.  
 The belief that life begins at conception is as old as man himself.  
 Science comes along and develops a way in which that life can be extinguished by talking a pill, and society, for the sake of convenience, changes the meaning of life.  
 Corporations are free to offer health care OR NOT.  
 O'fuckingBama and the Libtards decide they know best and THEY IMPOSE ACA on everyone, INCLUDING corporations and further, that the packages including death inducing drugs.  
   
 Now WHO is "Imposing" on WHO?????  
   
  Further, you conveniently ignore the difference between a closely held and a widely held corporation. With a widely held there are boards of directors elected by the shareholders who then hire the executives that run the corporations. No so with closely helds. The space between the owner and the decision, whatever it may be is wildly different.  
   
 Lastly, your example of Sharia law falls on it's face because employees at will are free to quit. Just like Hobby Lobby employees that MUST have death inducing drugs included in their HC package are free to quit as well.  
   
 

Excellently written.    My hats off.     As you rightly say, no sensible person can make these religious nuts from agreeing 2 + 2 = 4.   They will always say it s 3.    It is not a mindset but something in their blood.

No you are wrong.    Any employer, public or private can chose what health care plan and coverage he wants to offer to employees.    No questions asked.

When they use their religion and beliefs to impose restrictions on their employees that is theocracy and Sharia Law.

Get real.

I don't see Microsoft CEO Sathya  Nadela, a devout Hindu imposing his religion on his employees like restricting beef in their cafeteria.   They have class and their religion stays home when they leave for work.

JackDunphy746 reads

You seem to believe a person should lose their first amendment rights b/c they join into a corporation. The court should err on the side of religious liberty when in doubt, not against.  

It would have been one thing if Hobby Lobby was trying to make contraception illegal. Or deny women from access. They weren't. All they were asking is that they didn't want to have to PAY for four of the 20 mandated contraception pills/devices. They were perfectly fine paying for the other SIXTEEN.

You don't have a constitutional right to get free birth control. The gals can walk right on down to Walmart and pay $9/month. Yep! If the don't like it, they can go work for someone else who does cover all 20. Or they can start their own business and offer everything to their employees. Freedom of choice DA.

The government had other options here. It simply could have chose to expand title X and go around employers leaving their religious liberty intact. But nooooooooooooo!

Obama, being the rights killer that he is, couldn't control himself and the court HAD to step in.

Don't blame Hobby Lobby or the SCOTUS. Blame Obama and Obamacare for imposing the mandate and the RRFA that CLINTON signed into law.

DA_Flex803 reads

Absolutely not...but you fail to realized that there is a legal line of debarkation between a corporation and a persons.  The Hobby Lobby owners are 100% free to exercise their religion as the see fit.  The "for profit" corporation "Hobby Lobby" does not and should not have the same right.  They are 2 completely different legal entities.  The owners='Person', the Corporation="Legal Entity".  If the owners wanted to run their company in a strictly religious manner, all they needed to do was form a non-profit and there would be no issue.  The owners of Hobby Lobby cannot have it both ways.  They cannot enjoy the legal protections that a Corporation provides and claim that they can impose their religious will on their employees.  This is much more than a case about contraception!!!  Think for a change!!!

Posted By: JackDunphy
You seem to believe a person should lose their first amendment rights b/c they join into a corporation. The court should err on the side of religious liberty when in doubt, not against.  
   
 It would have been one thing if Hobby Lobby was trying to make contraception illegal. Or deny women from access. They weren't. All they were asking is that they didn't want to have to PAY for four of the 20 mandated contraception pills/devices. They were perfectly fine paying for the other SIXTEEN.  
   
 You don't have a constitutional right to get free birth control. The gals can walk right on down to Walmart and pay $9/month. Yep! If the don't like it, they can go work for someone else who does cover all 20. Or they can start their own business and offer everything to their employees. Freedom of choice DA.  
   
 The government had other options here. It simply could have chose to expand title X and go around employers leaving their religious liberty intact. But nooooooooooooo!  
   
 Obama, being the rights killer that he is, couldn't control himself and the court HAD to step in.  
   
 Don't blame Hobby Lobby or the SCOTUS. Blame Obama and Obamacare for imposing the mandate and the RRFA that CLINTON signed into law.

JackDunphy618 reads

Hobby Lobby isn't imposing their religious will on anybody. This is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT imposed a law that hurt Hobby Lobby's liberty!  

How do you NOT see that? This was an incredible overreach by Obama. Like I said, the feds could have EASILY made the contraception available by BYPASSING Hobby Lobby.

It was an activist, rights abusing, out of control, one size fits all and fck religious freedom government that should have just simply expanded title X and this would not have been an issue at all.

Remember DA, Hobby Lobby was sitting there minding there own business until Obamacare came along and trampled on their rights to have all, some or ZERO coverage for contraception.  

Its NONE of the governments fkin business to get between an employer and their employees when it comes to what benefits they should/shouldn't offer!

You are right, this is WAY more important then just a contraception case. It goes to the heart of the foundation of the country and is linked back to the first amendment.  

Its bad enough that the Admin has curtailed freedom of speech rights as well. What the fk is next with this bunch? They scare the shit out of me.

The courts have had enough of Obama. And thank God for that!

St. Croix648 reads

I don't care what the Supreme Court wants. I don't care what your Congressman wants, or the Hobby Lobby CEO, or Sandra Fluke, or anybody's political view on this board. The only person that matters is the CONSUMER, and in this case females.  

What does the female consumer want? Like any consumer they want a good product, access, at a low price. Of all the various contraceptive devices out there for women, over 95% use a non-surgical product, specifically THE PILL.  

So what is the answer? Put the God Damn pill OVER THE COUNTER. Take out the middlemen (private insurance, employers, government0, because when you do that you put the consumer closer to the manufacturer, which magically reduces the price. If the American College of OB/GYN's are OK with making most contraceptives available over the counter, then what is the problem?  

Today the pill runs about $20 to $70 for a monthly prescription. I guess I could tell Sandra Fluke to dial back on her venti soy latte once a week, which would pay for her damn prescription, that she so desperately needs for her insurance to pay at 100%. But when you shift from RX to OTC, prices fall further. Put this shit right next to Robitussin and Vagisil, and within a few months nobody will be talking about this issue.  

Look, I realize getting Washington DC out of health care makes liberals squirm. But this is a logical non-partisan consumer based lower price female focused solution.  
 

Posted By: DA_Flex
Here is an opinion place that captures a lot of my sentiment regarding the Hobby Lobby Decision.  Unlike most of the media, who has been focusing on the contraceptive ramifications, I tend to focus on the expansion of the concept of corporate personhood and the dangers of it.  In one of my earlier postings, I stated that there was no difference between a closely held coorpration and other types.  And legally there isn't.  Corporations are formed to protect the assets of the owner. I formed a corporation for my own business so that if the business ever gets used, my personal assets are protected. What that means is there is an implicit legal separation between me and the business.  That mean that the business must adhere to sate and federal regulations etc,etc. it also means that I create and maintain the philosophy to execute that business so long as it adheres to applicable laws.  A business owner can choose to run the business ethically or not, treat employees like assets or not, pay a decent salary or not.  What the this case did, along with Citizens United, was further blurr the lines between business and owner and push further along the concept of corporate personhood. If we accept that corporations exists, largely in part to protect the owners assets, how can we not legally hold corporate owners responsible financially for the mistakes that the business entity makes?  It is indeed a rare occasion where the owners of a large corporation are legally held liable for the behavior of a company. How many corporate executives went to jail because of the banking collapse that they caused....none! Furthermore, this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Would we have expected the same ruling if this suit was brought forth by a Muslim owner?  Would the so-called conservatives be hailing this decision if a corporation chose to impose Sharia type rules on it employees...I think not.  They would be screaming from the top of every roof that sharia law is going to be imposed on Christains. In addition, this personhood status now allows corporations to pick and choose what regulations violate their religious sensibilities.  How is a court to determine when a rule or regulation significantly burdens a corporation's religious sincerity, when the corporations main objective is to make profit?  The answer is that they can't.  I can certainly see a occasion where a corpration could challenge a regulation on religious grounds just to boost profit or revenue. Justice Ginsburg is correct that a Pandora's box has been opened and it has to be closed.  It can be closed by reaffirming the corporations are not persons!  This is a dangerous ruling for all of us.

JackDunphy614 reads

I wonder how the ACOG came to the belief that the contraindications issue would not be a problem? I guess they have studies to back that up to relieve their qualms they must have had.

Also curious as to what the FDA's take is on OTC contraceptive pills and why they have put the nix on it to date.

St. Croix1047 reads

First, we are dealing with a product (contraceptives - specifically the pill) that is priced in the $20 to $70 monthly range. If we were talking cancer and coverage, then OK, but we are talking about a product that is already relatively cheap, and would get cheaper if it was moved from an RX to OTC. Second, we have this stupid polarizing issue, as you can see  by the reaction on this board, which could go away in a nanosecond, but they keep bitching about it.  

As I understand, the American College of OB/GYN recommended over a year ago to move the pill to OTC. I would think the Democrats would focus on this because it gives all women cheap access. But they have this bug up their ass about having Washington involved in healthcare.  

Actually the best solution is to get off this employer provided health benefit that is basically a relic from WWII. Let individuals buy plans on the open marketplace like you buy auto or home insurance policies. You've mentioned allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, but just opening the marketplace to 300M+ consumers, you'll get more choices, lower prices, and more importantly the end of this stupid debate between the religious right and progressives. Plus I wouldn't have to listen to the likes of Sandra Fluke.

Posted By: JackDunphy
I wonder how the ACOG came to the belief that the contraindications issue would not be a problem? I guess they have studies to back that up to relieve their qualms they must have had.  
   
 Also curious as to what the FDA's take is on OTC contraceptive pills and why they have put the nix on it to date.

The thing that amazes me is how people are so shocked at the idea of corporate personhood.  They have always had constitutional rights and this is nothing new.  Hate to tell you, but Romney was legally right.

Think for a few moments.  How could the NY Times publish all those nasty things about Bush?  The NYT is a corporation.  Can it have the right to free speech under the 1st Amend?  And it isn't that free speech is guaranteed in the 1st.  If the constitution only applies to "people," then the NYT can't claim protection.

Likewise, if the X,Y,Z Corp pollutes a river, the state cannot go the the company's bank and take out money to cover damages.  Rather, the company has a due process right not to have its property taken without due process of law.  The state has to go to court and get money

It may be that X,Y,Z broke a law that caused the damage.  The police need a warrant to go search the property of X,Y,Z to look for evidence.  It cannot go in and just take the computers for evidence, or the company will file a motion to supress based on the denial of its 4th Amendment rights.

The fact that corporations are "legal" people is about 200 years old.

Finally, on another subject of Hobby Lobby:  The decision does not mean women cannot get birthcontrol.  Every woman affected by the opinion was, by definition, employed.  She could buy anything she wants with her money, including an abortion.

The Hobby Lobby decision does no more than send women back to the days before the ACA, namely the year 2010.  It is amazing how in two years this has become such an important right that an infringment on a statistically negligible group causes such a stir

...law.  You can fake your way through those topics much better.

Just as you falsely claimed California is number one in gun violence without a shred of proof...

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=230071&boardID=39&page=#230071

...you once again pull facts out of your ass without proof.  Righties believe something is true just because they say it.  And it they say it often enough they think others will believe it.

You said: "The fact that corporations are "legal" people is about 200 years old."  That's totally wrong.  For the first 100 years of our existence under the Constitution, corporate powers were severely limited:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

It was only in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) that the subject of corporate "personhood" was mentioned.  The case had nothing to do with "personhood" but the court reporter, a former railroad company president, put the Chief Justice's dictum in the headnote (ask marikod to look up "dictum" and "headnote" in his Black's Law Dictionary and tell you what they mean).  The headnote was then cited as 'stare decisis' to prove that corporations were persons even though the actual decision of Santa Clara Railroad didn't decide that point.

Try reading "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann instead of posting shit you pull out of your ass.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/331:unequal-protection-how-corporations-became-people-and-how-you-can-fight-back

Thanks for educating these right wing Zealots on the origins of this ridiculous doctrine.  The courts were pro-business during the latter part of the 19th century and even more today.  If only Americans knew the role railroads have played in the shaping of American jurisprudence they would really be surprised

...more rational righties.  But you see he just posts shit he doesn't know anything about.  If he's becoming like the other GOP Gomers who post on here, then you can't have a reasonable discussion with them.  Their posts usually devolve into name-calling because they're too stupid to make a cogent argument.

No one is going to read what you write after you mention gun violence. Especially when the topic is the SC ruling on Hobby Lobby.

 
I figured I would give you heads up, so you aren't wasting your time.

Posted By: BigPapasan
...law.  You can fake your way through those topics much better.

Just as you falsely claimed California is number one in gun violence without a shred of proof...
 
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=230071&boardID=39&page=#230071

...you once again pull facts out of your ass without proof.  Righties believe something is true just because they say it.  And it they say it often enough they think others will believe it.

You said: "The fact that corporations are "legal" people is about 200 years old."  That's totally wrong.  For the first 100 years of our existence under the Constitution, corporate powers were severely limited:
 
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

It was only in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) that the subject of corporate "personhood" was mentioned.  The case had nothing to do with "personhood" but the court reporter, a former railroad company president, put the Chief Justice's dictum in the headnote (ask marikod to look up "dictum" and "headnote" in his Black's Law Dictionary and tell you what they mean).  The headnote was then cited as 'stare decisis' to prove that corporations were persons even though the actual decision of Santa Clara Railroad didn't decide that point.

Try reading "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann instead of posting shit you pull out of your ass.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/331:unequal-protection-how-corporations-became-people-and-how-you-can-fight-back

He was talking about corporations in general having constitutional rights.  Paragraph 2 -1st amendment? Check. Paragraph 3 -14th amendment?- check. Paragraph 4- 4th amendment? check.
All true for many years.

       I have no idea what he meant by “legal people” or the date he gave but everything else is on the mark.

     I don’t think he meant that the rights of corporations are identical to the rights of natural persons – no one would contend that. I suspect you misunderstood him.

        Bit harsh on the guy, don’t you think? You should save your “you don’t know shit about” posts for me

...like to defend this statement of his:

"(A)company has a due process right not to have its property taken without due process of law."

Have you heard of asset forfeiture?  A company similar to TER recently was shut down and had its website seized without due process and a trial.  Everyone assumes this site is gone forever.  Not true; there will be a trial and if they prevail, they will be back in business.  But meanwhile, they have received the death penalty.  Was phil's statement correct or is that the 1% he got wrong?  Go look it up in your hornbooks and get back to me.  And read the Santa Clara Railroad case while you're at it.

I really don’t think Phil was trying to cover the field the when he said in effect that you can’t take corporate property without due process.  

           As to your example, I suspect that you will find that the web site Did receive due process.  The question is always “what process is due?” A trial and conviction are not required for a civil asset forfeiture, as I pointed out when I tried to persuade DA flex his article was really misleading. If this was criminal and a pre-conviction forefeiture only, you will still find that the web site owner received some degree of process before the forfeiture occurred, whether in the form of magistrate finding probable cause based on a detective's affidavit or a prelim hearing,

      But what do I know- you guys are the lawyers

so you need not worry about an expansive interpretation of the decision.

         There is almost no chance that it would be applied to a publicly held corporation. The two types of corporations are quite different. Public corporations have tens of thousands of owners; many of these owners are themselves corporations –mutual funds or hedge funds; many of the individual shareholders have different religions from Muslims to Buddhists to Christians.  How would you ever identify a “sincerely held religious belief” of a corporation with so many shareholders?

         Further, the separation between corporation and shareholder is far greater in a publicly held corporation than closely held corporation. There is almost no chance that a shareholder in a public corporation would ever be held liable for a corporate obligation solely by reason of his shareholder status.
         
         Not so in a closely held corporation where the owners usually run the business. You may think that the corporation  you formed to operate your business will protect your assets but that is true only in limited situations. If you are driving on corporate business and you rear end Tiger Woods and destroy his career, you are personally liable for his lost future profits –does not matter that you were acting solely as a corporate employee. If you co-mingle personal and corporate funds,  disregard corporate formalties in running your business, and otherwise abuse the corporate entity, we can still get your personal assets even if an employee hit Tiger- it’s called piercing the corporate veil.

          So it makes sense to treat a closely held corporation as an association of persons with the same religious beliefs  and give them RFRA and even some – but not all - constitutional rights. But the same rationale just does not apply to a publicly held corporation which is fundamentally different and, indeed, the Hobby Lobby court noted such corporations would not be expected to bring RFRA claims

DA_Flex678 reads

There is no reason why a publicly held business, or otherwise, would not attempt to utilized this exception.  Its what lawyers do.  This ruling is a mistake no matter how you want to excuse it and I fully understand what a closely held corporation is and as far as I'm concerned, its a specious exception that the courts tried to carved.  It will fail

Posted By: marikod
so you need not worry about an expansive interpretation of the decision.  
   
          There is almost no chance that it would be applied to a publicly held corporation. The two types of corporations are quite different. Public corporations have tens of thousands of owners; many of these owners are themselves corporations –mutual funds or hedge funds; many of the individual shareholders have different religions from Muslims to Buddhists to Christians.  How would you ever identify a “sincerely held religious belief” of a corporation with so many shareholders?  
   
          Further, the separation between corporation and shareholder is far greater in a publicly held corporation than closely held corporation. There is almost no chance that a shareholder in a public corporation would ever be held liable for a corporate obligation solely by reason of his shareholder status.  
           
          Not so in a closely held corporation where the owners usually run the business. You may think that the corporation  you formed to operate your business will protect your assets but that is true only in limited situations. If you are driving on corporate business and you rear end Tiger Woods and destroy his career, you are personally liable for his lost future profits –does not matter that you were acting solely as a corporate employee. If you co-mingle personal and corporate funds,  disregard corporate formalties in running your business, and otherwise abuse the corporate entity, we can still get your personal assets even if an employee hit Tiger- it’s called piercing the corporate veil.  
   
           So it makes sense to treat a closely held corporation as an association of persons with the same religious beliefs  and give them RFRA and even some – but not all - constitutional rights. But the same rationale just does not apply to a publicly held corporation which is fundamentally different and, indeed, the Hobby Lobby court noted such corporations would not be expected to bring RFRA claims.  
 

GaGambler615 reads

The differences between closely held and publicly held corporations are many, but once again Mari in his eagerness to make a point misstates the facts. Piercing a corporate shield is not a slam dunk IF you are diligent with your annual meeting, keeping minutes, not co mingling funds, etc.

but his major point is correct, this ruling will not extend to publicly held corporations, nor should it. Although I am in favor of anything that weakens Obamacare and leads to it's ultimate repeal or other demise, unlike Obama himself, I accept the fact that it will have to be done legally, and this ruling will never extend to publicly held corporations, so get your panties out of a wad. This won't be the end to Obamacare, but hopefully something will.

To publicly held corporations regardless what the opinion states. As stated,  an excellent lawyer will find holes in the ruling and attempt to extend it to these types of corporations as well. Will they succeed?  That's yet to be determined. However, I'll give you credit for your sound logic and point of view even though I disagree.  Unlike many other dumb ass idiots who post here, your post are well thought out and sound even though I disagree with you most of the time old fart! Lmao!

-- Modified on 7/7/2014 2:29:56 PM

-- Modified on 7/7/2014 2:31:53 PM

GaGambler542 reads

As you know I am not 100% lefty or righty, nor am I 100% whitey or otherwise, so I find myself in both agreement and disagreement with both sides depending on the issue.

Here is something I bet we can agree with. This country is becoming "browner" by the minute and NOTHING is going to change that no matter what they do regarding immigration, the borders, or amnesty. and with that browning of America, so will come a shift in the balance of power. All those white libs that thing all these brown immigrants are simply going to fall in line, join the Democratic party, and reelect the current white leadership are in for a big surprise, and I don't just mean the Republicans supposed party of old white men.  All those white liberal Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to be  in for a shock when the  next generation of leaders have names like Gonzalez and Ramirez. lol

Take tax law, for instance. Small corporations can have their income taxed on their owners tax returns. They can also transfer dividends tax free. Rationale is that the interests of the corporation are an extension of the interest of the owner.

So giving a small business the character of its owners is not anything new.

-- Modified on 7/7/2014 9:22:26 PM

Register Now!