Posted on 03/26/2014 2:25:40 PM PDT by NYer
I never said a corporation isn’t a separate legal entity. It is. However, the courts have interpreted the word “person” to include a corporation many times because corporations are generally a group of owners, who are human beings. Owners do not have to work for a corporation that they own.
I’m not wrong.
There is a legal construction principle called "ejusdem generis," which means "of the same kind, class, or nature." What it is used for is the construction and interpretation of lists and examples. And what it requires is that all of the things in any list or examples be the same.
As I said earlier, human beings under the original Constitution have God-given rights. While corporations ahve no rights, but State granted and limited privileges. These two powers - rights versus privileges - are fundamentally opposite in nature, and therefore are mutually exclusive. You cannot have rights and privileges in the same entity under the same conditions at the same time. It's either - or. You can be free, or you can be a slave, but you can't be both.
Whenever a statute lists it's application to corporations, it actually specifies a group of corporate types - usually including "individuals, partnerships, trusts, limited liability corporations and corporations." If you look up the definition of the word "individual" in the US Code, it says that it means "person."
However, under the principle of ejusdem generis, all of the things in that list have to be the same. So you can't have some entities having rights (persons and individuals), and other entities having privileges (partnerships, trusts, limited liability corporations and corporations). They ALL have to have EITHER rights OR privileges.
And corporations CANNOT have rights.
Therefore, statutory "persons" and "individuals" DO NOT have rights either.
This mystery is solved when you examine the detailed statutes, which are usually hidden, that go on to describe APPLICABLE "persons" and "individuals" as having CORPORATE REPRESENTATION AUTHORITY, as well as actually doing whatever it is the statute is addressing under that corporate authority.
So the only human people who are under corporate law are those who are representing that company, in other words, acting as its agents as a corporation. This DOES NOT include "employees" who work FOR the corporation, but not AS its representatives (such as the officers, board, etc.).
So you see why keeping this strictly narrow meaning of the words "person" or "individual" an open secret is so important. Because as it is, if a government agent asks you if you are a person or an individual, and you say yes, you are accepting the loss of your rights under the status of a corporately limited representative - and thus making yourself voluntarily liable to corporate statutes that otherwise simply would not otherwise apply to you.
And that is what "person" and "individual" REALLY mean.
The rest of us wondered why Chief Justice Roberts bungled the original Deathcare decision so badly as to make today's arguments necessary.
Wrong.
The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 .
First Amendment PRIVILEGES.
The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law is a discussion of the blurring of the use of the TERMS "rights" and "privileges" in the Harvard Law Review.
However, this article does not equate God-given rights with government granted privileges. What it does is follow court twistings and turnings to re-define "rights" as those privileges that are so crucial to the functional operations of corporate entities (as subject to 14th Amendment federal jurisdiction), that to deprive them would be equivalent to functionally destroying them, or ensuring their demise.
That is not the same as acknowledging something untouchable because it is God-given. In fact, it is because it is not the same, that judges and justices have slithered around the involved definitions for a hundred years, and articles like this one have been published to justify the slithering. Because the big problem has been the CLEAR distinction between the two jurisdictions. So equating the two as jurisidictionally equivalent "privileges" has occupied a LOT of effort by the legal system over many, many years.
Nevertherless, this effort has been in terminology ONLY - not ACTUAL jurisdiction. God-given rights are subject to Common Law jurisdiction, while privileges (whether they are called rights or not) are subject to Administrative Statutory, Regulatory or Admiralty Law jurisdiction (they all being the same jurisdiction applied to different situations). This has not changed a bit - NO administrative court will base itself on the Common Law, and so does NOT deal with God-given Constitutional rights.
And it was the 14th Amendment that codified this diverting of the Court into solely Administrative jurisdiction.
I've made a great deal of legal truths very plain to you and others in this thread. However they are not rare in themselves - just left unspoken by lawyers and judges. For these issues are made clear to first year law students as matters of simple fact. So your "arguments" are juvenile and tedious, not to mentions belligerently obstructionist denials of simple logic. For that reason, I don't believe that you don't understand the truth of what I am saying. Rather, I think you are... motivated... to prevent other readers from accepting their own understanding of it. And as this subject has to do directly with the freedoms understood and claimed by Americans, I'm afraid that doesn't sit you very well in my eyes - at all. So I won't be wasting my time with you again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.