It’s official: In Arizona corporations enjoy preferential rights and liberties superior to individuals

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In another remarkable moment this week, Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2625 into law on Friday. Brewer signs Arizona bill on contraception coverage:

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday a measure allowing some religious employers to opt out of covering prescription contraceptives as part of their health-care plans.

House Bill 2625 applies only to "religiously affiliated" employers, which are defined as non-profit groups that primarily employ and serve individuals of the same religion or religiously motivated organizations with articles of incorporation clearly stating that religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles.

* * *

"Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the First Amendment," she said in a news release.

Just… wow. First of all, religious institutions (churches) are already exempt from providing such coverage so that last statement from Gov. Brewer is a solution in search of a problem that did not exist.

The key to HB 2625 is how it amends A.R.S. Sec. 20-1057.08 (G) to define "religiously affiliated employer." Subsection 1 is unchanged from previous law and describes religious institutions (nonprofit entities for tax purposes) which are already exempt from providing such coverage under existing federal and state law.

A new subection 2, however, adds: "An entity whose articles of incorporation clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles."

Got that? The legal fiction of a corporation now possesses constitutional rights and liberties under HB 2625, and Arizona says corporations enjoy preferential rights and liberties superior to individuals under this law.

Just… wow.

The U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions corporations, partnerships, etc. The rights and liberties secured by the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are individual rights and liberties secured to citizens of the United States. And the rights and liberties of individual citizens are co-equal — there is no preferential class of individuals whose rights and liberties are superior to another class of individuals (In theory… the original sin of our Constitution regarding the treatment of African-American slaves and Native Americans is a subject for another day).

That the Constitution did not grant rights or liberties to corporations was not by accident. The colonists' experience with the economic tyranny of the British chartered company The East India Company is what gave rise to the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution. As Thom Hartmann explains, The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s:

"During the 18th century, Enlightenment ideals began to challenge the power of monarchies and corporations, and the power of the queen’s corporation began to fade. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 signaled not only a victory over the economic tyranny of the East India Company, it also helped pave the way for the political uprising known as the American Revolution. Also around this time, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations, arguing for free market economics, but against the concept of large corporations, claiming that they limit fair competition among smaller-sized merchants and artisans."

Corporations like The East India Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info:

Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

* * *

At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

We have now come full circle here in Arizona. The rights and liberties secured by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to individual citizens for which American patriots fought and died in a Revolution against the political tyranny of the Crown and the economic tyranny of The East India Company have now been granted to the legal fiction of a corporation — by the state of Arizona.

And Arizona grants these corporations preferential rights and liberties superior to individuals. This is a radical new direction in constitutional law.

The legal fiction of a corporation may now impose its religious faith on individuals of other religious faiths, or of no faith, simply because that individual is employed by that corporation. The very notion offends the concept of "religious liberty" embodied in the the First Amendment. It is a violation of the "free exercise" clause that is state-sanctioned by force of law:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

It also violates "The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution…," Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 12.

If a religious institution (church) chooses to enter the stream of commerce by forming a corporation for the commercial purpose of a business, that business should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other similarly situated businesses on a level playing field. To grant the commercial enterprise (corporation) of a religious institution preferential status baed upon a religious affiliation by state-sanctioned force of law is a colorable claim for violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

Detractors will argue "but HB 2625 is limited to corporations owned and operated by religious institutions," which is true — for the moment. But this represents the camel's nose under the tent, as was made clear by the original version of this bill which sought to grant this exemption to any employer regardless of religious institution affiliation. Its supporters will be back for another bite at the apple to get what they originally intended.

This law should be challenged as unconstitutional in a court of law. We are not (yet) a theocracy.