Replies

I am wondering about the concept of presuming an individual is a corporation in order to apply a different set of laws. I haven't seen the concept anywhere else, and my web searches only turn up the opposite - the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals. Have you seen the idea anywhere but in the context of Obamacare?

In a sense it is everywhere and nowhere, depending on your ability to recognize what is in front of your eyes. And of course, much of the law is designed by very intelligent people, working together for decades, to present information in such a way as to block your ability to recognize what is in front of your eyes. So don't feel bad about any of this - it dodn't drop out of the sky as an intelligence test. It was created specifically so that everyone but the "elect" would misunderstand it.

Take your example, what you call "the opposite" - "the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals." Corporate law. also called administrative or statory or regulatory or admiralty law, is "positive" law. That means it only has power over what it says it has power over. That seems obvious, but it is contrasted with "negative" law, the law of rights, where rights control everything - said or unsaid - except the little bit that is allowed the government. That is the form of the original American Constitution. Positive law entered this country through the 14th Amendment, which made statements that conradicted the original Constitution. Under legal construction rules, therefore, the 14th Amendment would have had to have been thrown out for being contradictory - unless an alternative aplication was found for it. Well, one was "found" for it (which was always it's intent) - that of corporate law. Which is positive law, which operates like mathematics.

So what does your "example" show mathematically, in positive law? "Corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals" is a declaration of equivalence. Except corporations cannot have the same rights as people, because people have their rights from God, and corporations are empowered by the State. That's why you have to use the word "individual," to indicate a human being acting in a corporate capacity. Once that is made clear, other "terms of art" are made clear - such as using the word "rights." In a corporate capacity, when the only thing being discussed is corporate entities, the word "rights" is allowed as a stand-in for the actual functional concept of limited privileges.

So actually, your example isn't really an example - it's merely a self-defining statement that corporations of any kind have the same limited privileges accorded to human beings acting in a corporate capacity. And you are correct in phrasing it the way you did - because that's exactly what the SCOTUS did.

So you see, the examples are everywhere - and they are very strictly adhered to. The trick, and the problem, and the field of study, is finding out what the terms and rules of construction are. And the problem is that the Court has allowed these corporate terms and constructions to be "presumed" against non-corporate human beings. So when people protects and say, "why should I have to learn all of this corporate crap that doesn't apply to me," the answer is, "because it's being presumed against you, and word games are being played by the courts to get you to accept the presumption without you understanding what you are agreeing to." And to those who say, "you can't force someone to agree to a contract without them understanding it," I say, "you can't take away the freedom to contract, you can't take away the freedom to vote in restrictions on presumption levels, and you can't take away your right to agree or disagree to what is presented to you, without losing your freedoms altogether."

In other words, as Franklin famously said, "a Republic, madam, if you can keep it." Americans MUST learn the way the law actually works, in order to defend themselves against its misuse. And really, it's not all that hard (insert lawyer joke here). But you have to want to learn it. Not like it - want it. The difference is the difference between liking boating, and learning how to pilot a boat away from the rocks. Some thing things simply must be done as a duty if we want to remain free, and they aren't fun.