What is Incorporation?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Excellent presentation from Brian McClanahan.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

Legal mumbo jumbo.

Thanks anyway. I'll pass.
dc

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Huh? It’s actually a real thing David13, and important in how people are interpreting or misinterpreting the Constitution/Bill of Rights. But if not interested, no biggie.

onefour1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1596

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by onefour1 »

Do corporations have more or better rights than individuals? A corporation can deduct nearly all their expenses on their tax returns, whereas an individual has very few options for deducting expenses.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

onefour1 wrote: July 25th, 2019, 5:58 pm Do corporations have more or better rights than individuals? A corporation can deduct nearly all their expenses on their tax returns, whereas an individual has very few options for deducting expenses.
Not the topic. Please revisit the video in the OP

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

That's just the kind of mood I was in.

But, unlike onefour1, I did watch a bit and realized that you were NOT posting about corporations, but instead, the legal doctrine of incorporation.

Taken from a basic business point of view, "what is incorporation" would indeed mean what type of business entity is it, and would I or we want it?

As it stands, I'm still not in a legal mumbo jumbo mood, but I have not looked at the issue of incorporation for quite some time, so I should get back to it at least a little.

Maybe tomorrow.

Thanks
dc

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by harakim »

Incorporation is taking a bunch of crap and making it one - one body, if taken literally or one as in purpose if taken as the word is used. Sounds like Zion.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

The doctrine of incorporation is a rather well established legal concept.

For those interested, a summary of the major cases on it, one way or another:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

dc

User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1085
Location: A galaxy far, far away

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

Incorporation is the means by which the government restricts your liberty and steals more money from you.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: September 25th, 2019, 4:33 pm Incorporation is the means by which the government restricts your liberty and steals more money from you.
That is why we are more happy when the legislature is NOT in session, and not working. Because all they do is restrict freedom and tax money and spend it (not their money).

Thus it is better if they DON'T legislate.

But here we are talking about a different incorporation.
dc

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Another great discussion of the issue:

https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/po ... rporation/

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

ajax wrote: November 25th, 2019, 9:59 am Another great discussion of the issue:

https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/po ... rporation/
I suppose I should listen to all of it, but I didn't yet.

He starts out complaining about Alexander Hamilton and ...nationalism. The correct term is ... federalism. Hamilton was a federalist, or believer in strong central government.

You can have a nationalist sense of patriotism and support for your total entity (country) and still believe in local control and states rights. A decentralized government with regard to most things but with the exception of national defense vs. foreign entities.

So I see Brion starting off on the wrong foot with his video. I'll have to go thru' the whole thing at some point, but starting out wtih a misconception like that is sort of a deterrent to me.
dc

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

He fully understands it David. He knows the federalists vs the anti-federalists and how those are confusing because the federalists were really nationalists (strong central govt) and the anti-federalists really federalists. He uses the correct understanding of the positions. The federalists were really nationalists.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Allison »

ajax wrote: July 24th, 2019, 3:47 pm Excellent presentation from Brian McClanahan.
Wow!!! No need to ask him my question re: states and the Bill of Rights. So John Taylor Gatto was right, and it sounds heavenly. It allows us to self-segregate according to our values. It also allows for a multitude of social experiments to play out and we can all see for ourselves the fruits of various political and social philosophies.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Allison wrote: December 12th, 2019, 11:24 am
ajax wrote: July 24th, 2019, 3:47 pm Excellent presentation from Brian McClanahan.
Wow!!! No need to ask him my question re: states and the Bill of Rights. So John Taylor Gatto was right, and it sounds heavenly. It allows us to self-segregate according to our values. It also allows for a multitude of social experiments to play out and we can all see for ourselves the fruits of various political and social philosophies.
Indeed. The Bill of Rights was to ensure the general government didn't overstep certain bounds and become a one size fits all solution. They could not be a negative on state law. The states still retained sovereignty and could reflect the political culture of it's constituents. If Alabama wants to ban abortion, so be it. If Massachusetts wants healthcare for all, so be it. We were set up to be a Federal Republic, with the general government basically over foreign affairs, and commerce, and the states over all domestic policy. All of the states had constitutions prior to the US constitution, most of which already had a declaration of rights. The US Constitution is for the general government only, and what limited powers were delegated to it.

I'm not familiar with John Taylor Gatto. What was he right about?

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by David13 »

ajax wrote: December 12th, 2019, 11:37 am

Indeed. The Bill of Rights was to ensure the general government didn't overstep certain bounds and become a one size fits all solution. They could not be a negative on state law. The states still retained sovereignty and could reflect the political culture of it's constituents. If Alabama wants to ban abortion, so be it. If Massachusetts wants healthcare for all, so be it. We were set up to be a Federal Republic, with the general government basically over foreign affairs, and commerce, and the states over all domestic policy. All of the states had constitutions prior to the US constitution, most of which already had a declaration of rights. The US Constitution is for the general government only, and what limited powers were delegated to it.

I'm not familiar with John Taylor Gatto. What was he right about?

Indeed the original idea was that the federal government would be limited and there would be strong local control.

It takes a village, but who will run the village, the feds in Washington or the globalists in Europe or wherever, or the locals, each locality with their own particular customs traditions,e tc.

That's what a lot of people don't understand about globalism, is that it is directly contrary to the individualism that the country was based on.
dc

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Allison »

ajax wrote: December 12th, 2019, 11:37 am
Allison wrote: December 12th, 2019, 11:24 am
ajax wrote: July 24th, 2019, 3:47 pm Excellent presentation from Brian McClanahan.
Wow!!! No need to ask him my question re: states and the Bill of Rights. So John Taylor Gatto was right, and it sounds heavenly. It allows us to self-segregate according to our values. It also allows for a multitude of social experiments to play out and we can all see for ourselves the fruits of various political and social philosophies.
Indeed. The Bill of Rights was to ensure the general government didn't overstep certain bounds and become a one size fits all solution. They could not be a negative on state law. The states still retained sovereignty and could reflect the political culture of it's constituents. If Alabama wants to ban abortion, so be it. If Massachusetts wants healthcare for all, so be it. We were set up to be a Federal Republic, with the general government basically over foreign affairs, and commerce, and the states over all domestic policy. All of the states had constitutions prior to the US constitution, most of which already had a declaration of rights. The US Constitution is for the general government only, and what limited powers were delegated to it.

I'm not familiar with John Taylor Gatto. What was he right about?


Without looking up his bio, this is only my experience with him---he was NYC and NY State Teacher of the Year on several occasions (in the 90's, probably), and he advocated homeschooling and was super critical of the public education system. So he had quite the voice among homeschoolers back in the day. I had a couple of his books, but in one of them he sounded like a libertarian, while explaining how the various states and localities could make their own laws according to the various cultural norms and preferences. He talked about the beauty of it, how it allowed people who were unhappy with their government to simply relocate to a community that fit their values better.

It all sounded great until this question came up and it seemed that thanks to SCOTUS, nobody would be allowed to do anything to curtail porn because it was Speech and you know, it's hands off the Bill of Rights. I just don't believe that porn is in reality the same kind of "speech" that the Founders intended to protect. Now, thankfully, we are not bound hand and foot by SCOTUS definitions of words.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

I also highly recommend this Allison, which goes along with the topic, state constitutions:


Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Allison »

ajax wrote: December 12th, 2019, 2:29 pm I also highly recommend this Allison, which goes along with the topic, state constitutions:

Staggering ideas! I am embarrassed to never have looked at my own state constitution, but it sounds like the more important one to know.

It makes one wonder if Virginia could actually be acting lawfully as they attempt to remove the people’s right to self-defense. Hard to imagine the VA constitution not covering that base, though.

I wonder too if Deleware legislators are still sworn in that way today.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Article 1 Section 13 of the VA Constitution states,

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And I agree, we ought to know our State constitutions very well. This is where the real rubber hits the road. What state do you live in. Is there a bill of rights for your state?

The problem is we've been so trained that everything is a federal issue, we ignore our own states.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Allison »

ajax wrote: December 12th, 2019, 3:29 pm Article 1 Section 13 of the VA Constitution states,

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And I agree, we ought to know our State constitutions very well. This is where the real rubber hits the road. What state do you live in. Is there a bill of rights for your state?

The problem is we've been so trained that everything is a federal issue, we ignore our own states.
Of course it would say that! It makes me want to cry for Virginia. We loved living there.
Last edited by Allison on December 31st, 2019, 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Killing the Incorporation Doctrine
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revi ... -doctrine/
A review of The 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine by David Benner (Minneapolis: Life and Liberty Publishing Group, 2017)

Even though I have always been a strong advocate of states’ rights and sovereignty, and for safeguarding the federal system, the “incorporation doctrine” had always troubled me. What is meant by the “incorporation doctrine”? The application, by the federal courts, of the Bill of Rights restrictions upon the states. In other words, the states are bound by the restrictions found in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.

I certainly didn’t like the doctrine of incorporation but I once believed that it was simply the way things were. As long as states were in the Union, then they must uphold the US Constitution, and if they chose not to, their only recourse was ultimately secession. But, of course, I had never bothered to dig into the particulars of the legal theory to determine if it was sound or not.

How did I arrive at that conclusion? I had always viewed the third clause of Article VI as proof of it:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….”

To my way of thinking, this meant that all state officials had to uphold the entire Constitution, which would include the amendments. Even though the 1st Amendment began with “Congress shall make no law …,” I felt the above clause took precedent. How wrong I was.

If the “incorporation doctrine” has likewise troubled you, then I suggest picking up a copy of David Benner’s excellent and concise book, The 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, and you will gain the necessary ammunition to combat the lies of the progressives.

One big piece of evidence that the “incorporation doctrine” is not sound is in the well-established fact that it did not emerge until well into the Progressive Era, never being utilized by the federal courts until the 1920s, and had never been uttered before then.

As Benner writes, it was “during the Progressive Era when the federal courts began to claim that the 14th Amendment had ‘incorporated’ federal Bill of Rights restrictions against the state governments.” The reason is simple: This new doctrine “has provided the basis upon which the federal judiciary overturns state laws deemed to be unsavory.” It has been used to severely erode the Constitution’s original intent and provide the federal courts “an excuse to meddle with the internal affairs of the states,” leading to the “widespread annihilation of federalism.” No legal precept, he writes, “has done more to transform the power of the federal judiciary into a superlative, harmful force, wholly detrimental to the interests of decentralized government.”

How did we get here? It is clear from history that the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was established by a desire to bind the federal government. Benner notes that not only were the ratification conventions very clear about the original intent of the Constitution, that in the very first Congress, James Madison introduced a constitutional amendment that would have applied limits on the states but it was rejected by the House.

Even the Marshall Court, in the 1833 case, Barron v. Baltimore, held that the restrictions in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, for the amendments were seen as “restraining the power of the general government.” This opinion “went unchallenged for almost 100 years,” Benner notes.

After the “Civil War,” however, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to ensure that “freed slaves enjoyed the same basic fundamental rights and privileges as their white counterparts.” But because such a law could be repealed by a future Congress, particularly one led by the Democrats, Republicans placed the same provisions into a new constitutional amendment, the 14th Amendment.

Part of Section 1 of the amendment is the one federal judicial activists have used to bind the states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yet as Benner has pointed out, if you consider the opinions of those in Congress who drafted the amendment, it was never their intention to impose the Bill of Rights on the states. The amendment was simply to “constitutionalize” the components of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was never to be used to expand past the limited intention of the law.

In fact, in another interesting tidbit of history, Benner notes that in 1875, Congress considered an amendment to apply the 1st Amendment restrictions to the states. It failed. So if the 14th Amendment had been intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, then such a proposal would have been unnecessary. Furthermore, in the “Slaughterhouse Cases” of the 1870s, the Supreme Court also upheld the original intent of the Constitution, and subsequent Courts did so until the 1920s. And even after that, as Benner points out, many prominent justices continued to hold that the “incorporation doctrine” was incorrect.

What has been the result of the “incorporation doctrine”? Federal courts have found that welfare recipients have a “right” to state welfare benefits, pedophiles can constitutionally evade execution, women have a right to choose to have an abortion, Christian nativity scenes on public grounds are unconstitutional, and so on.

The “incorporation doctrine” is, as Benner has pointed out with unbreakable evidence, the basis for the ultimate destruction of our federal system, that of states’ rights and sovereignty. It places the states under the supervisory jurisdiction of federal courts and solidifies them as mere provinces of Washington, which was the ultimate objective of the nationalists throughout our history.

David Benner, who is a contributor to the Abbeville Institute Review, has done a great service to the cause of constitutional government. His little booklet is a must-read for those who want to truly understand our federal system and how it has been eroded over the course of the last century.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by larsenb »

ajax wrote: November 25th, 2019, 11:32 am He fully understands it David. He knows the federalists vs the anti-federalists and how those are confusing because the federalists were really nationalists (strong central govt) and the anti-federalists really federalists. He uses the correct understanding of the positions. The federalists were really nationalists.
Nationalist/nationalism has at least 3-4 somewhat separate meanings, not just "strong central govt" as one of them.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

larsenb wrote: December 13th, 2019, 12:15 pm
ajax wrote: November 25th, 2019, 11:32 am He fully understands it David. He knows the federalists vs the anti-federalists and how those are confusing because the federalists were really nationalists (strong central govt) and the anti-federalists really federalists. He uses the correct understanding of the positions. The federalists were really nationalists.
Nationalist/nationalism has at least 3-4 somewhat separate meanings, not just "strong central govt" as one of them.
I get it. I am nationalist in the fact that I believe the USA (as a union of states with specific delegated powers, mostly foreign) should retain it's sovereignty (and I believe strict neutrality) among the nations.

However, within the USA, I am not nationalist, I'm a federalist, not of the incorrectly labeled federalists of the founding generation, who were really nationalists desiring strong central authority and state submission, but of the also wrongly labeled anti-federalists, who were the true federalists and anti-nationalists, in that they desired to retain state sovereignty and local control. I believe that states retained their sovereignty over all domestic concerns. I believe that Utah can and should be different from Texas, which can and should be different from Alabama, which can and should be different from California, each reflecting the cultural norms of the people in that area. Nationalism within the USA suggests a one-size fits all approach to the states. It is top down. It is an eternal fight for the center to control the rest that does not recognize the differing cultures and norms of the various regions of America and allow for their self-governance.

On the domestic front, the two parties in question are nationalist parties, they have solutions for every topic for everybody. The proper response to almost all domestic policy, should be for the states to work out. This is federalism. It is anti-nationalism on the domestic front.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

The reason why federalism is necessary and important here is that the colonists were never one homogeneous culture and people. Though there were obviously some similarities of language and culture, there were also vast differences. Puritan Massachusetts was vastly different than Cavalier Virginia. A recommended read on this is Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer.

The solution was to be a federal republic, allowing the differing regions and cultures to self govern and allowing to live and let live.

Being able to self govern and retain local sovereignty was very important. Nationalism becomes an internal fight over which culture will win. It reared it's ugly head when one section wouldn't allow the other to leave. Humans have an ugly tendency to want to reform our neighbors.

Post Reply