4 ms·

> Amazon in a filing made with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Thursday said it plans to argue that the agency's unique structure violates the comp

by tmaly 3y ago

> Amazon in a filing made with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Thursday said it plans to argue that the agency's unique structure violates the company's right to a jury trial. I wonder if the founders intended that the bill of rights be extended to legal entities?

hobotime 3y ago
Entities have rights because they are comprised of citizens. We don't get to label a group of citizens and then get to violate their rights because we labeled them.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > We don't get to label a group of citizens and then get to violate their rights because we labeled them. "We" aren't labeling the citizens, they're doing so themselves. The default mode is that people are subject to unlimited personal liability for the harms they do to others. Society has chosen to make available a privilege of doing business in a limited-liability form (corporations, LLCs, LPs), but that privilege has strings attached. Don't like the strings? Then simply do business individually or as general partners — and accept the risk of unlimited personal liability. (Also, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applies to suits at common law; NLRB cases arise by statute, not common law, although SCOTUS has extended the jury right to so-called equivalents of common-law cases, which seems suspect.)
rayiner 3y ago
The founders certainly intended that constitutional rights would apply to people’s business activities (e.g. the contract clause). So the real question is whether the founders intended that business owners would be deprived of those rights merely because of the legal structure of their business.
- lokar 3y ago
  Did the founders envision limited liability and the public stock corporation? Business activity was vastly different at the founding
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    Did they envision labor unions with mandatory and exclusive bargaining rights? I'm not sure what the point of going down that rabbithole would be in this case.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Did the founders envision limited liability and the public stock corporation? They were aware of corporations as a business structure. English public stock corporations had played a major role in the founding of the colonies of Virginia (Virginia Company of London and Virginia Company of Plymouth) and Massachusetts (Massachusetts Bay Company), and also in the history of Canada (Hudson's Bay Company). They were certainly aware of these concepts. Corporations are older than the United States is. That said, it was a much rarer business structure, only used for very large firms, because incorporating a company required a special act of Parliament – a power inherited by the colonial (and thereafter state) legislatures. It was not until the 19th century that it became the norm to for companies to be incorporated under a general incorporation statute, as opposed to a separate incorporation statute being passed to incorporate each individual company.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > So the real question is whether the founders intended that business owners would be deprived of those rights merely because of the legal structure of their business. No, the real question is whether the framers intended to prohibit people from implicitly trading away certain individual rights in exchange for limiting what would otherwise be their unlimited personal liability.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    They made their positions clear with the 3/5ths rule
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      I'm not sure what that has to do with personal liability.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
At what point should we stop considering the unstated or not explicitly codified thoughts of the writers of the Constitution? I swore an oath to defend that cloth multiple times and at this point it’s not clear that it holds up to 21st century scrutiny for being the kind of governing document we would create, should we have an opportunity to do so.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  It's a magical religion used to rationalize whatever position a speaker wants to push. Appeal to dead revered authority's supposed intent fallacy. Instead, we should be honest, wise, cautious, aware of history, and principled about the needs and concerns now and for the future that diverged significantly due to differences in technology and geopolitics while human nature hasn't changed all that much. American politics are definitely more corrupt, less educated, less principled, and more divided than any point apart from the 1840's.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  The writers of the Constitution and the people who democratically ratified their product. The Constitution is absolutely open to change via democratic means, but in absence of that, it is the democratic product of the people.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Tell me again who could vote for this document?

by tmaly 3y ago

hobotime 3y ago

Entities have rights because they are comprised of citizens. We don't get to label a group of citizens and then get to violate their rights because we labeled them.

dctoedt 3y ago
> We don't get to label a group of citizens and then get to violate their rights because we labeled them. "We" aren't labeling the citizens, they're doing so themselves. The default mode is that people are subject to unlimited personal liability for the harms they do to others. Society has chosen to make available a privilege of doing business in a limited-liability form (corporations, LLCs, LPs), but that privilege has strings attached. Don't like the strings? Then simply do business individually or as general partners — and accept the risk of unlimited personal liability. (Also, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applies to suits at common law; NLRB cases arise by statute, not common law, although SCOTUS has extended the jury right to so-called equivalents of common-law cases, which seems suspect.)

rayiner 3y ago

The founders certainly intended that constitutional rights would apply to people’s business activities (e.g. the contract clause). So the real question is whether the founders intended that business owners would be deprived of those rights merely because of the legal structure of their business.

lokar 3y ago
Did the founders envision limited liability and the public stock corporation? Business activity was vastly different at the founding
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  Did they envision labor unions with mandatory and exclusive bargaining rights? I'm not sure what the point of going down that rabbithole would be in this case.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Did the founders envision limited liability and the public stock corporation? They were aware of corporations as a business structure. English public stock corporations had played a major role in the founding of the colonies of Virginia (Virginia Company of London and Virginia Company of Plymouth) and Massachusetts (Massachusetts Bay Company), and also in the history of Canada (Hudson's Bay Company). They were certainly aware of these concepts. Corporations are older than the United States is. That said, it was a much rarer business structure, only used for very large firms, because incorporating a company required a special act of Parliament – a power inherited by the colonial (and thereafter state) legislatures. It was not until the 19th century that it became the norm to for companies to be incorporated under a general incorporation statute, as opposed to a separate incorporation statute being passed to incorporate each individual company.
dctoedt 3y ago
> So the real question is whether the founders intended that business owners would be deprived of those rights merely because of the legal structure of their business. No, the real question is whether the framers intended to prohibit people from implicitly trading away certain individual rights in exchange for limiting what would otherwise be their unlimited personal liability.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  They made their positions clear with the 3/5ths rule
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    I'm not sure what that has to do with personal liability.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

At what point should we stop considering the unstated or not explicitly codified thoughts of the writers of the Constitution? I swore an oath to defend that cloth multiple times and at this point it’s not clear that it holds up to 21st century scrutiny for being the kind of governing document we would create, should we have an opportunity to do so.

1letterunixname 3y ago
It's a magical religion used to rationalize whatever position a speaker wants to push. Appeal to dead revered authority's supposed intent fallacy. Instead, we should be honest, wise, cautious, aware of history, and principled about the needs and concerns now and for the future that diverged significantly due to differences in technology and geopolitics while human nature hasn't changed all that much. American politics are definitely more corrupt, less educated, less principled, and more divided than any point apart from the 1840's.
paulddraper 3y ago
The writers of the Constitution and the people who democratically ratified their product. The Constitution is absolutely open to change via democratic means, but in absence of that, it is the democratic product of the people.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Tell me again who could vote for this document?