Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Still think that government intervention in the economy is a good thing?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay: [QB] Did you even bother to read the link Omega? [QUOTE]Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable 'to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936). [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State's competency. ~ Nebbia v. New York[/QUOTE] There is some more fascinating reading. You might want to try some Omega. Part of constitutional scholarship is reading the court cases that actually interpret clauses, sections and amendments to the Constitution. So whilst you say the 14th Amendment does not allow for such regulation, the federal courts clearly say that you are, well let me check here, yes, wrong. Incorrect. Not right as it were. Moreover, until a law is declared unconstitutional in the federal courts system, that is the constitutionality of any given law called into question by legal challenge in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court had the final constitutional say, laws are valid. And as such they require implementation by the agencies given authority in the law as passed by Congress. In the case of the Antitrust laws, the FCC and the Department of Justice. The point here is not to argue the essential nature of a monopoly by Microsoft (although a federal court has ruled that it is a monopoly), rather to argue that the laws are valid having suffered no constitutional challenge. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3