There are some interesting arguments. First is State jurisdiction over corporations:
Judge Mazzant's opinion strongly rebuked the CTA for overstepping constitutional boundaries. He noted that corporate regulation has traditionally fallen within the states' jurisdiction.
Second digs into the whole "Do corporations have First Amendment rights?"
The plaintiffs, including small business owners and a trade association, argued that the CTA compels speech and association, infringing on First Amendment protections.
I have a feeling this particular law is just the tip of the iceberg that dredges out a whole bunch of garbage to the full view.
Corporations are legal creatures of state legislatures through chartering. They should not be persons unless the law stupidly so stipulates. If rights are endowed on individuals, they cannot be uniquely endowed on collective associations, since the association enjoys individual rights individually. As a collective, they can assign the exercise of their rights (under conditions specified) to their agents (corporate officers) in order to buy, sell, make goods or provide services, and pay wages.
Of more concern (to me) is the situation of the corporate shareholders, as they are presented as owners---but are denied the perquisites of owners. The major shareholders have the power of direction, so there is only pure democracy (i.e., tyranny) as its governing principle. There are seldom any shakeups resulting from a shareholders' meeting. I think it would be interesting for applicable law to say that any 10% of shareholders could compel a vote of confidence in the prevailing Board of Directors et al. The governing majority would probably vote it down easily. But it would be an interesting twist to require that if over 50% of the outvoted minority still voted for a loss of confidence on a second ballot, then it should prevail. On the principle that if the overwhelmed minority were not uniformly content to go along with the majority, then the majority does not get to rule. Then open ballots for new directors. (In other words, the evidence of proper stewardship of the majority shareholders would be in the relative acquiescence of the minority to the majority decision prevailing. This would be an inhibition of the temptation of the majority to run roughshod over the minority.)
Human rights should apply to individuals only. Corporations are much more powerful than individuals, and they don't die. They could trample individual human rights more than a government could. In fact they can combine and rule governments (State Street, Black Rock, Vanguard). There was an 1868 law about railroads that deceptively gave corporations human rights, and it has set many tangled precedents.
Can somebody tell me why we keep referring to this “House Resolution” as a “Law” that “goes into effect” on Jan 1 2025 (edit: 13th, it’s listed different dates in different places) when it hasn’t passed the senate or been signed by the president, according to Congress.gov?
These criminals keep acting like it’s even a law, and by the way it’s “H.R. 2513” from 2019 and goes into effect on January 13 2025 kek.
Where did this monstrosity actually get passed? Do they only need to write House Resolutions in order to get us to respond to things like they’re legitimate in any form now?
Why does a court even need to block it if it’s not a law? Is it a preliminary injunction (lawfags, is that the right term?)?
There has been some movement on this:
Court Blocks Corporate Transparency Act — Forbes
There are some interesting arguments. First is State jurisdiction over corporations:
Second digs into the whole "Do corporations have First Amendment rights?"
I have a feeling this particular law is just the tip of the iceberg that dredges out a whole bunch of garbage to the full view.
Corporations are legal creatures of state legislatures through chartering. They should not be persons unless the law stupidly so stipulates. If rights are endowed on individuals, they cannot be uniquely endowed on collective associations, since the association enjoys individual rights individually. As a collective, they can assign the exercise of their rights (under conditions specified) to their agents (corporate officers) in order to buy, sell, make goods or provide services, and pay wages.
Of more concern (to me) is the situation of the corporate shareholders, as they are presented as owners---but are denied the perquisites of owners. The major shareholders have the power of direction, so there is only pure democracy (i.e., tyranny) as its governing principle. There are seldom any shakeups resulting from a shareholders' meeting. I think it would be interesting for applicable law to say that any 10% of shareholders could compel a vote of confidence in the prevailing Board of Directors et al. The governing majority would probably vote it down easily. But it would be an interesting twist to require that if over 50% of the outvoted minority still voted for a loss of confidence on a second ballot, then it should prevail. On the principle that if the overwhelmed minority were not uniformly content to go along with the majority, then the majority does not get to rule. Then open ballots for new directors. (In other words, the evidence of proper stewardship of the majority shareholders would be in the relative acquiescence of the minority to the majority decision prevailing. This would be an inhibition of the temptation of the majority to run roughshod over the minority.)
Human rights should apply to individuals only. Corporations are much more powerful than individuals, and they don't die. They could trample individual human rights more than a government could. In fact they can combine and rule governments (State Street, Black Rock, Vanguard). There was an 1868 law about railroads that deceptively gave corporations human rights, and it has set many tangled precedents.
Can somebody tell me why we keep referring to this “House Resolution” as a “Law” that “goes into effect” on Jan 1 2025 (edit: 13th, it’s listed different dates in different places) when it hasn’t passed the senate or been signed by the president, according to Congress.gov?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2513/all-info
Did I miss that, or did the name change or something?
Was it shoved into an Omnibus?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2513
These criminals keep acting like it’s even a law, and by the way it’s “H.R. 2513” from 2019 and goes into effect on January 13 2025 kek.
Where did this monstrosity actually get passed? Do they only need to write House Resolutions in order to get us to respond to things like they’re legitimate in any form now?
Why does a court even need to block it if it’s not a law? Is it a preliminary injunction (lawfags, is that the right term?)?
Edit: https://greatawakening.win/p/19A12r7clc/x/c/4ZHkayoGYAa Apparently this, but why isn’t it listed on Congress.gov??
Edit edit: here’s your list of reps to excommunicate: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2019577
Awwwwwww Kay Granger is on there, but she’s not actually still in Congress or in her own head! Boo hoo.
Aderholt AL, Cheney WY, Fitzpatrick PA, Gallagher WI, Granger TX, Graves (GA) GA, Graves (LA) LA, Huizenga MI, Katko NY, King (NY) NY, Kustoff (TN) TN, Loudermilk GA, Luetkemeyer MO, McCaul TX, Olson TX, Rogers (AL) AL, Rooney (FL) FL, Rutherford FL, Scott, Austin GA, Smith (NJ) NJ, Stefanik NY, Upton MI, Wagner MO, Waltz FL, Williams TX
Thank you bb! And I believe you are correct...just the tip of the iceberg...eye opening for the normies..