The Impact Of Burwell V. Hobby Lobby

A corporation is a separate legal entity that possesses distinctive liabilities and privileges than that of their members or shareholders. As an investor, a corporation’s advantage is liability for their own investments especially in risky investments (Kubasek, et al., 2012, p. 760). Among the various types of corporations for Betty to select from, an S corporation is an enticing venture for new entrepreneurs given that it grants limited personal liability for debts, sharing of corporate profits, and taxation relief. Double taxation is a main disadvantage of C corporations but not for S corporations. The General Corporation Law (Corp C §§100-2319) treats S corporations similarly to partnerships for taxation purposes.

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

Corporations Law can be described as the interaction between directors, employees, financier, consumers and the community. Corporations law can be implied to this case as Water Corporations, a government owned company had a responsibility upon entering into a contract with Norvik Industries to provide an attention to skill when connecting the water line. To provide fully trained employees to undertake this job. This involved double checking there work.

“A corporation is an artificial person separate and distinct from its owners.” Briefly explain this statement.

This statement encapsulates why the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment found it necessary to include that, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Bingham’s reading of the Constitution already incorporated this point, but Rogers’ certainly did not, so by placing it in the Fourteenth Amendment, the framers ensured beyond all doubt that the right of all citizens to equal protection of the laws would be part of any subsequent reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

The issue is over Hobby Lobby vs. the Obama Administration. Hobby Lobby has taken a stance against ObamaCare’s contraception coverage. ObamaCare’s affordable health care act, gives employees who are women access to contraceptives such as the morning after pill and IUDs, which the plaintiffs of Hobby Lobby considered to be forms of abortion.

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

The first case that the Supreme Court displayed its power of deeming a person guilty for practicing their religion is during the case of Reynolds v. the U.S. (1878). In this court case, George Reynolds was arrested for having multiple wives. His reasoning for having multiple was was due to him practicing his religion. With a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court deemed Reynolds of being guilty. This was mainly because the First Amendment protected their beliefs,

It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.

Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.