Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
So.... if the corporation is now responsible for representing the individual literally and legally, where does that put the notion of limited liability?
It may seem to be a matter of "having your cake and eating it too," but I've never heard any legitimate view that corporate limited liability is in danger (and in any event, that's really a matter of state rather than federal law).
But keep in mind: corporate limited liability doesn't mean that human beings who commit wrongdoing are immunized from their wrongdoing just because they work for (or own) a corporation, either civilly or criminally. It essentially means that an investor is simply limited to losing up to the value of the his investment, but no more. (And that means in his or role as in investor--if the investor is involved in the operation of the company, he is generally liable for his conduct.)
(And as a minor aside, don't be misled by the "five or less controlling owners" business--the IRS thing is a red herring and there is no reason to suppose the Supreme Court adopted whatever the IRS definition may be rather than the general definition of "closely held," but I've already explained this enough times and if anyone still disagrees with me, that's fine, we'll just disagree.)
Ed:
Still not sure I completely understand your question/issue, but perhaps the following is relevant. (If not, well, I'm trying!)
Under federal law (and generally under state law, to my knowledge), the word "person" includes a corporation. I know that's somewhat of a legal fiction, and there are exceptions, but that's generally the way things work.
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
STATUS MESSAGE There are 5 Updates Pending. Select the tab below to view.
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.
Edit:
Ed, if you haven't yet done so, and are really interested in this, you have to read the Supreme Court decision. You still may not agree with it, and that's fine. After all, 4 members of the Supreme Court didn't agree with it, so it's not as if the issue is clear cut.
But I think it will at least give greater understanding of what the various competing interests are.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
If you've already read it, then my comment obviously doesn't apply and my apologies, but I'm quite sure there are at least some posters on this thread (in fact, probably all or almost all, other than me) who seem to have strong opinions on this decision, but have not read it!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the SCOTUS found in favor of a company, ruling that the right of a "company" to religious freedom is an over riding concern compared to the right to access health care for women.
It is not clear to me, in the usual concept of "company," that it can have a religious belief.
Perhaps you can explain that.
from the ruling you linked above:
(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19.
I liked the line: "but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees"
yet there is no discussion of how the rights of the employees benefit from the ruling, or the shareholders (there may be none). It would seem that the employees are not required to hold the same religious views as the owners, and are now being denied an essential part of health care. If corporations are considered "persons" it is not just a consideration of the owners, but of all the people associated with the corporation. What is the argument for considering only a subset of those associates?
However, in the sense that the HHS Dept. will provide that part of health care directly to the employees is encouraging, it takes us closer to a "single payer" system... incrementally for sure.
I don't think that Hobby Lobby could refuse to pay taxes because it disagrees with the USG policies and programs. So in the end, it pays anyway.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ed, got it--glad to see you did in fact read the opinion and have formed your own views, rather than just parroting the standard liberal party line that I suspect many ST'ers are doing.
If the HL majority couldn't persuade you (and all of the Supreme Court Justices are at least better-than-average lawyers, if nothing else), I doubt I can.
One thing we likely do agree on--this whole mess comes about because of the government-induced link between health care and employment (for those fortunate enough to get employer provided health care)--many of us are forced to buy our own health care using after-tax dollars, unlike employers who can deduct the expense (and employees are not required to report imputed income).
Remember that the Hobby Lobby women are in the worst case just in the same boat as tens of millions of other Americans who don't get employer tax-subsidized health care.
And in fact, as I think you recognize, it seems that the HL employees get the same benefits as employees who get full Obamacare because of various HHS programs (I have to admit, I don't really have a good handle on how that works).
Anyway, I'm off for fireworks, Happy 4th.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
I see you, Crowley. Rolf Harris, KaKa, Kiali Lie'e Pritchard, or whatever.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2014 - 03:23am PT
|
overwatch
:-)
|
|
BooDawg
Social climber
Butterfly Town
|
|
The problem in the USA is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legal people, SO that is what federal law now says. The only solution is to amend the constitution such that corporations are not considered people and MONEY DOES NOT = FREE SPEECH!
MOVE TO AMEND! https://movetoamend.org/
It will take a grassroots awareness and support, just like it did when the slaves were freed and women got the vote!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Dawg, nice sentiment, but such an amendment has NO POSSIBILITY of being enacted, sadly. I say this because of the process required. it will NEVER make it through that process, and a petition is not part of that, anyway.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The problem in the USA is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legal people,
Shouldn't legal people be allowed to produce business in the realm of legal people under the liability clause of "corporation"?
"if i'm a private Building Contractor that takes on the heading of a corporation for liability purposes, why shouldn't i have the right to veto(or atleast try) some initiative the Gov injects as moral discourse?"
Hope i'm saying that right^^^?
isn't the difference between "closely held" being solely, personal, privately owned, compared to not, like that of GM Motors?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Shouldn't legal people be allowed to produce business in the realm of legal people under the liability clause of "corporation"?
Should they be able to do so at the expense of other legal people?
The test has always been that your right to wave your arms ends at my nose.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Should they be able to do so at the expense of other legal people?
Not sure i understand ur meaning?
But if i own a business, don't i have the right to proclaim "no shirt, no shoes, no service" to a Customer. Customer being the public.Even when the Government makes no pronouncement. So why can't i say something like "i'm not paying for your abortion even though the government said i should" to an employee that works for me, and a representative of my business?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the quote from the ruling (see above) that pertains to the "personhood" of a corporation is:
"It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them."
what is interesting is that there is a logical jump from the first sentence to the second. The first sentence explains 'familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons...” to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.'
there is no distinction made regarding the "people associated with the corporation." The familiar fiction would include all of the people associated with the corporation.
The second sentence makes a very significant restriction, however: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them." Which seems to include only those who own and control them, that would exclude the employees.
So in my view the SCOTUS majority in this ruling has made a choice to exclude from their consideration how this ruling "protects the rights of the employees" of the corporation, who are explicitly mentioned as a part of the "familiar legal fiction," that of a corporation having the status of a person.
Obviously, the employees' rights are not considered, and they are certainly not protected, in this ruling. The majority has ruled for part of the person, not all of that person. They seemed to skip explaining why.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
who are explicitly mentioned as a part of the "familiar legal fiction," that of a corporation having the status of a person.
So this would be meaningful in a dispute between Gov. and Corp.,
But in the case wit h Hobby, it's a conflict within the Corp.?
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2017 - 08:15pm PT
|
I'm all for women's rights. Period.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2017 - 08:39pm PT
|
Normally a post like Syrotax's would annoy me like a jock rash but thanks to the Evelyn Wood speed eating course it's just a quick study...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!