This is why the Supreme Court says corporations are people. Its their interpretation of the word person. 1948 seems to be when this went forward. I dont believe they intended person-al religious liberty to be granted to a corporation (persons, people). Can the argument not be made that a corporation is more than one person and therefore is not entitled to person-al religious liberty? How else can a corporation not be liable to pay person-al income tax in addition to their lower corporate tax rate? The Supreme Court cant have it both ways. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things; words importing the plural include the singular; words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well; words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present; the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis; the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; “officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office; “signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such; “oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed; “writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:44:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015