LOL, another whiny, complaining orthodox member of the narrow minded Liberalism religion gets exercised over his fundamentalist beliefs as he is still smarting over the Hobby Lobby decision. Nash then he added: Do you know anybody under 25 that gives a damn whether you marry a man if youre a man or if you marry a woman if youre a woman? No. No, of course Liberalism is not a religion under the sense of it being the worship of a deity but rather under that other definition of being a set system of beliefs. Graham Nash of that musical group from the 60s called Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young is a member of the religion of Liberalism and a Fundamentalist at that. He is attacking those age old decisions from the 1800s which established that a corporation is a person. The word person is of course a word and the meaning therein has been a source of contention now for many, many years even in regards to the other definition of religion involving the worship of a deity specifically in regards to Trinitarian Christians vs. Unitarian Christians which would include Jehovah Witnesses who maintain that Christ is not God. Trinitarian or Orthodox Christians being for example Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians or should we say over 99% of all Christians are Trinitarians and as such they believe in the Trinity which = (3) Persons but (1) Essence in the Godhead. The Unitarians for which Obamas Mother was also a member of the Unitarian Church disagree and cannot fathom this understanding of the word persons vs. essence. The fundamentalist followers of the religion of Liberalism suffer from the same lack of understanding of the word person when it comes to a corporation. They attacked Romney for explaining this in the last election. Yet to change this the court would have to overrule these previous Supreme Court decisions from the 1800s. Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood people apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.[2] While the headnote is not part of the Courts opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, Under the designation of person there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution.[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. home.myhughesnet/news/read/category/Entertainment/article/the_associated_press-nash_sees_young_people_as_saviors_of_the_future-ap
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:54:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015