Posted on 07/12/2014 5:26:18 AM PDT by cotton1706
Except when it means free stuff.
How old is Chuckie now?Nature will take it’s course with him soon,he should try legislating against THAT.
The US Constitution cannot be amended by law. It’s really as simple as that. In other words, corporate law can’t be used by Congress to circumvent constitutionally protected rights, like the freedom of religion. It doesn’t even matter if a particular business owner is willing to give up their religious liberty in order to do business.
1st 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.
What do the words, “no law” mean if not NO law? It’s not like laws governing incorporation aren’t, in fact, laws.
This reads like satire.
“To be followed soon by pedophilia, incest, bestiality . . “
That’s exactly how it’s going to be played put!
Oddly enough, there is an underlying constitutional problem that needs to be addressed. Since the time of Lincoln, “corporate civil rights” have come to dominate business law.
However, human civil rights are unalienable, and endowed by the creator, so are neither given, nor can be legitimately taken away by government. Corporate civil rights are *entirely* issued by government, and can be modified, or even eliminated at their whim.
The major problem exists in confusing human civil rights with corporate civil rights. It is a dangerous enough problem that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to address it, because as things now stand, it permits corporations to do things they should absolutely not do; and it suggests to government that human civil rights are theirs to whimsically tamper with as well.
Importantly, corporations *do* need rights, issued by the federal government, to protect them against abuses by the states, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and each other. But these are *not* human civil rights.
Which brings us up to the current situation with Hobby Lobby. Were it to be a “public company”, issuing shares to stockholders, and controlled by the majority shareholder, it is a “public” corporation. So its corporate civil rights can be and should be wholly in the realm of government.
This has legitimacy, and as a sword it cuts both ways. For example, such a corporation could be forced to offer abortions as part of a health plan; but at the same time, the corporation could be forbidden from direct involvement in politics, or even funding of charities, NGOs and foundations, the vast majority of which are liberal-leftist.
However, Hobby Lobby and many others exist as “privately held corporations”. This means that because they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, they have far greater rights to assert the human civil rights of its owners. Conversely, government should have far less ability to require performances from it, as it would if the private corporation was an individual.
In practical terms, this should also mean that Hobby Lobby should have almost *all* the same corporate rights as there are human civil rights.
Just recall the democrat convention, when they booed the living God.
In the past, they were kind of subtle and indirect, not too open about their intentions. But lately, they are not too cautious, as they feel that they don’t need to be.
Stated simply and to the point.
But still over Kristen Gillibrand's head.
Almost all?
All.
I think they’re going to go for all the marbles during Obama’s last two years in office. Probably view the period as their best chance to get everything they want.
“The Constitution forbids a religious test for public office.”
Not strictly. Until the 14th, this was only interpreted to mean federal offices or designations. States themselves often required religious tests for state government positions in their constitutions, examples including Arkansas among others.
Sorry. I've got to watch myself. ;-)
With Democrats, up is down and down is up. I seriously mean it. They seem to speak the same language as real Americans, but the words have entirely different meanings. For example, freedom means government gets to control everything you do if you dare open a business.
An accurate observation. I have observed this also.
Last weekend, I was at a family reunion, where one of the attendees quite loudly proclaimed that he liked Obama, loved Obamacare, and if Obama was running for a third term, he would vote for him. A little while later he stated he was a "conservative Democrat."
You read that right.
My view is that if the government can tax a business then a business should be treated like a person. Otherwise it’s taxation without representation.
How about having the orthodox community pay for thier own sh## chucky, care to tackle this one? They marry within the religion but not with the state so thier spouces and kids stand on line for entitlements as single parents, they vote in massive blocks like lemmings to elect those who will give them everything they want.
Obama: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”
Schumer: “If somebody wants to practice their religion, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”
“Contraception and abortion are sacraments of the left and ALL must partake or be destroyed...in the name of liberty of course.”
And for the children.
Not entirely. For example, *as a company*, they should not have a civil right to “have” or adopt children as their legal guardian. They should not have a separate enfranchisement in voting from their votes as individuals. Nor will they have apportioned representation in congress, nor will they be counted as a separate entity in the census.
As a company, they cannot run for public office (a company tried to do this recently, suggesting it was a joke. But right now, the law might not be able to stop them from doing so legally for some offices.)
Likewise, their right to privacy is *different* from that of a person. They may be required to conform to federal health and safety rules. They are incorporated by states, not the federal government itself, so also come under state rules.
I’m sure there are many more, but these come to mind as not unreasonable.
The left/progressives/socialists/communists don't believe in property rights. "The State" is all and owns everything. It "might" let us use things, but only on its terms.
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.