In other words, the first 2/3s of the article can be summed up In whatever is created for good; someone will use for evil’ due to the fall of mankind...
‘It’s not just advisable but crucial for citizens to become intimately familiar with the system of government that directly impacts their daily lives. This involves understanding the type of government—be it a mayor-council, council-manager, or commission form—as well as the classification of government, such as whether it operates under home rule, general law, or a specific charter. These classifications dictate how local governments can exercise their powers and interact with citizens, and they vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
Understanding these local government dynamics is essential for effective civic participation.‘.
However, the toolkit for individual citizens: priceless!!
Yes, Black's Law Dictionary is widely used by lawyers (and also by judges) for legal definitions and understanding legal terminology, making it a crucial tool in legal research and argumentation. However, when it comes to interpreting the law, judges primarily rely on a broader range of resources and methodologies beyond just legal dictionaries. These include:
Statutory Text: Judges first look at the language of the statute itself, adhering to the principle that the statute's plain text is the most direct evidence of legislative intent.
Legislative History: For ambiguous statutes, judges may examine the legislative history, including committee reports, drafts of legislation, and legislative debates, to understand the context and intent behind the law.
Precedent: Judicial decisions from previous cases (stare decisis) provide a significant guide. Judges look at how past cases have interpreted similar statutes or legal principles to ensure consistency in the law.
Principles of Statutory Construction: There are established rules and principles for interpreting statutes, such as interpreting words in their ordinary meaning, avoiding interpretations that would result in absurd outcomes, and considering the statute in its entirety.
Commentaries and Treatises: Scholarly works, including legal commentaries and treatises, offer insights into legal principles and their applications. These works can provide a deeper understanding of complex legal issues.
Restatements of the Law: Published by the American Law Institute, Restatements are highly respected distillations of common law. They aim to articulate the consensus of the American courts on particular areas of law and are often cited by judges.
Legal Dictionaries: While not a primary source for legal interpretation, legal dictionaries like Black's Law Dictionary are used as supplementary tools for clarifying the meanings of specific legal terms and phrases.
Judges synthesize information from these various sources to interpret laws in a manner that is consistent with legislative intent, prior case law, and established legal principles. This process ensures that the interpretation and application of law are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of legal standards and societal values.
Judges also use canons of statutory interpretation. These canons are standard principles or rules that judges and courts use to interpret the language of legislation and legal texts when there is ambiguity or uncertainty about their meaning. These principles help ensure that interpretations are consistent and aligned with legislative intent. Some of the key canons of statutory interpretation include:
Plain Meaning Rule: If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, judges should apply the statute according to its plain terms without delving into other interpretive aids.
Ejusdem Generis ("of the same kinds"): When a list of specific items is followed by more general terms, the general terms are interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius ("the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another"): Mentioning specific items in a statute suggests that the legislature did not intend to include items not mentioned.
Legislative History and Intent: When the statutory language is ambiguous, judges may look at the law's legislative history and the overarching purpose behind its enactment to discern legislative intent.
Noscitur a Sociis ("it is known by its associates"): The meaning of a questionable word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.
Avoidance of Absurd Results: Courts should avoid interpretations of statutes that would lead to absurd, unreasonable, or unjust outcomes that Congress is presumed not to have intended.
Presumption Against Superfluities: Every word and clause in the statute should be given effect, with no part rendered insignificant or unnecessary.
I don't think people really understand how that dictionary actually works, so here's a short lesson, "Black's Law Dictionary" serves as a comprehensive reference for legal terms and phrases, and its utility extends across various facets of legal practice and study. Below is a step-by-step guide on how it is commonly used:
Step 1: Identifying the Term or Phrase
The first step is to identify the legal term or phrase that you wish to understand. This could be a term you've encountered in a legal document, court decision, or academic paper.
Step 2: Locating the Term in the Dictionary
Once you have identified the term, you would then locate it in "Black's Law Dictionary," either by flipping through the pages in a physical copy or using the search function in a digital version.
Step 3: Reading the Definition
After locating the term, read the definition provided. The definition often includes the term's origin, its usage in specific legal contexts, and citations to statutes or case law where the term has been defined or discussed.
Step 4: Understanding the Context
It's crucial to understand the context in which the term is used. Legal terms can have different meanings depending on the jurisdiction or the specific area of law. "Black's Law Dictionary" often provides this context.
Step 5: Cross-Referencing
Some definitions may refer you to related terms or concepts. It's often useful to read these related entries to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the term in question.
Step 6: Application
Finally, you would apply your understanding of the term to the legal issue or document you are working on. This could involve using the term correctly in a legal argument, interpreting a statute, or drafting a legal document.
Example 1: "United States"
In a legal context, the term "United States" can refer to the federal government, the geographical territory, or the collective states and territories. "Black's Law Dictionary" would provide these nuanced definitions, allowing for a more accurate interpretation of legal documents or statutes where the term is used.
Example 2: "Tort"
The term "tort" refers to a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. In "Black's Law Dictionary," you would find a detailed definition, including its origins and how it is used in various legal contexts like personal injury law, property law, etc.
In common parlance, a "person" generally refers to a human being. However, in legal contexts, the term can have a broader application. According to "Black's Law Dictionary," a "person" can refer to an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity that can possess legal rights and obligations. The definition may also include government agencies, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific statute in question.
How to Use "Black's Law Dictionary" for the Term "Person"
Identify the Term: You come across the term "person" in a legal document or statute and need to understand its specific legal meaning.
Locate the Term: You look up "person" in "Black's Law Dictionary," either by flipping to the 'P' section in a physical copy or using the search function in a digital version.
Read the Definition: The definition will elaborate on the various entities that can be considered a "person" in legal contexts, such as individuals, corporations, and sometimes even governmental bodies.
Understand the Context: The term's meaning can vary depending on the area of law (e.g., criminal law, corporate law) and jurisdiction. "Black's Law Dictionary" will often provide this context.
Cross-Reference: The definition may refer you to related terms like "natural person," "legal person," or "corporate personhood." Reading these can provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Application: Finally, you apply this nuanced understanding to interpret the legal document or statute where you encountered the term "person."
Understanding the term "person" in its legal context can significantly impact the interpretation of laws, contracts, and legal arguments. "Black's Law Dictionary" serves as an essential resource for such intricate understandings, offering clarity and precision in legal discourse.
Up until now because of birth certificates and the 14th Amendment we ARE seen a a franchise of a corporation… drivers license… marriage license… the registration of transportation… all fraud on the people that intentionally are mislabeled as persons so as to commit this very fraud onto us….
While you explanation and words sound like you know what you speak of I believe you are failing to see the bigger picture here. AND how this word person IS STILL BEING USED for trickery/fraud .
I think it would be much easier and more truthful if you just admitted that you don’t want to participate in your civic duties. Making excuses for that just isn’t going to work out. State laws can be changed. Rally to change them if your not happy with the laws in place. Now.
The requirements and procedures for issuing birth certificates can vary between states. Below are examples from California and Texas to illustrate this:
California:
• Information Included: In California, the birth certificate usually includes details like the child’s name, date of birth, place of birth, and parentage.
• Authority: California’s Department of Public Health, specifically the Office of Vital Records, is responsible for managing birth records.
• Home Births: For home births, the attendant or the mother has to file a birth certificate within 10 days of the birth.
• Amendments: The state allows certain information on a birth certificate to be amended, such as the name, under specific guidelines.
• Legal Framework: Governed by the California Health and Safety Code Sections 102400-102490.
Texas:
• Information Included: Similar to California, but Texas also requires the recording of additional medical and demographic information for statistical purposes.
• Authority: The Texas Vital Statistics Unit, part of the Texas Department of State Health Services, is the agency responsible for vital records.
• Home Births: If a birth occurs outside an institution in Texas, the birth must be registered within one year, and evidence to substantiate the facts of birth may be required.
• Amendments: Texas has a more stringent set of rules for amending a birth certificate. For instance, changes to the father’s name require a court order or the filing of an Acknowledgment of Paternity.
• Legal Framework: Governed by the Texas Health and Safety Code, Title 3. Vital Statistics, Chapters 191-195.
Differences:
1. Home Birth Registration Time: California requires home births to be registered within 10 days, while Texas allows up to one year with additional evidence.
2. Amendment Rules: Texas typically requires a court order for more significant changes, like the father’s name, while California has a broader set of guidelines that may not require court intervention.
3. Additional Information: Texas requires more extensive medical and demographic information for statistical purposes compared to California.
These differences reflect the states’ respective priorities and administrative procedures, though the core function of birth certificates as legal documents of identity and citizenship remains constant.
Laws and regulations governing birth certificates primarily reside at the state level in the United States. Each state has its own legal statutes and administrative codes that lay out the procedures for birth registration, issuance of birth certificates, and their legal uses.
State Level:
For example, in California, the Health and Safety Code Section 102400-102425 outlines the administrative procedures related to the registration of births. It specifies what information should be included, who is responsible for filing it, and other procedures.
Federal Level:
On the federal level, while there is no singular law that governs birth certificates across states, certain agencies like the U.S. Department of State do have regulations regarding what forms of birth certificates can be used for federal purposes, such as obtaining a passport. For instance, the U.S. Department of State specifies that a birth certificate must include certain information to be considered a “certified birth certificate” fit for federal identification purposes.
Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides guidelines and standards for birth registration through its National Vital Statistics System, but these are guidelines rather than enforceable federal laws.
Uniform Law:
Additionally, the Uniform Law Commission proposed a model “Revised Uniform Law on Vital Statistics” in 1977, aiming to provide states with a uniform legal framework for vital records, including birth certificates. This model law provides comprehensive procedures on birth registration, the issuance of certificates, and penalties for fraudulent activities. However, it’s up to each state to adopt these uniform laws, and adoption varies.
While the specifics may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the general legal and administrative framework for birth certificates in the U.S. is consistent: they serve as legal proof of identity, age, and citizenship, and are crucial for statistical and public health purposes.
Birth certificates are primarily governed by state laws and regulations in the United States, as the issuance of vital records falls under state jurisdiction. Each state has its own Vital Records Office responsible for birth certificates, and the formatting and specific information contained within may differ slightly from state to state. However, federal guidelines also exist to standardize some elements of birth certificates, particularly for the purposes of federal identification and statistical recording.
The primary legal purposes of a birth certificate are as follows:
1. **Legal Identification**: It serves as a fundamental form of identification, confirming details like name, date of birth, and parentage.
2. **Citizenship Verification**: For those born in the United States, a birth certificate is a primary document establishing U.S. citizenship.
3. **Legal Rights and Responsibilities**: It provides the basis for other legal processes, such as obtaining a Social Security number, enrolling in school, or qualifying for certain rights and benefits.
4. **Statistical Record**: It is also used for governmental record-keeping and statistical purposes, such as population tracking and public health monitoring.
The typical formatting, which can include features like security paper, watermarks, and official seals, is designed to deter forgery and fraud. In modern times, digital versions may also be used but must comply with specific security standards.
Federal guidelines may touch on what data elements should be collected at birth for the purpose of issuing a birth certificate, but the specifics are generally defined at the state level. The Uniform Law Commission has also proposed a model Vital Statistics Act, which some states use as a guideline for their own laws, but the adoption of these guidelines varies.
While there isn't a single federal statute that details what a birth certificate is, its purposes are well-understood and codified in various state and federal laws and regulations. Its format is designed for both security and official recognition.
The notion that a corporation is considered a "person" under U.S. law can be traced back to the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. However, the case itself did not explicitly establish corporate personhood. Instead, a headnote written by the court reporter, which does not carry the weight of law, indicated that the Justices presumed corporations were persons under the 14th Amendment. This set a precedent that has been cited in later cases.
The legal concept of corporate personhood means that a corporation has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under the law, similar to those of an individual. In essence, this form of "personhood" allows corporations to enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and exercise free speech.
However, corporations are not granted all the constitutional rights that a natural person would enjoy. For instance, they do not possess the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, they are subject to regulations and restrictions that might not be applicable to individual citizens.
Subsequent cases, most notably Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, expanded on the concept of corporate personhood by ruling that corporations, as "persons," have the right to freedom of speech, which in this context, includes the ability to make unlimited independent political expenditures.
The definition of a corporation as "a person" is thus not an assertion that a corporation is a living, breathing human being but rather a legal construct designed to facilitate the functioning of corporations within the legal system. This construct is one of the more debated elements in American constitutional law, given its ethical, social, and political implications.
Under what law does it say anything of what your claiming?
Not to be rude, but you really need to stop listening to one’s that cherry-pick information. You have things confused.
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment to include corporations as “persons” has been the subject of considerable debate and has generated various criticisms. Below are some of the primary points of contention:
1. Unequal Resources: Critics argue that giving corporations personhood status allows them to use their substantial resources to exercise disproportionate influence over political and legal systems.
2. Limited Liability: Unlike natural persons, corporations enjoy limited liability, which some argue gives them the benefits of personhood without many of the associated responsibilities or ethical obligations.
3. Political Influence: Corporate personhood can result in substantial political power through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, which many contend subverts democratic principles.
4. Perpetual Existence: Unlike human beings, corporations can exist in perpetuity, allowing them to amass wealth and influence indefinitely.
5. Social and Environmental Responsibilities: Critics say that treating corporations as persons absolves them from higher ethical or moral obligations to society or the environment.
6. Profit Motive: Corporations primarily exist to generate profit for shareholders, which some argue conflicts with the societal responsibilities that come with personhood.
7. Accountability: Critics assert that treating corporations as persons complicates legal accountability. It is often difficult to hold any single individual within a corporation accountable for the entity’s actions.
8. Constitutional Originalism: From a strict constitutionalist perspective, some argue that the framers never intended for the 14th Amendment to apply to corporations, thus questioning the legal validity of such an interpretation.
9. Free Speech: The extension of First Amendment rights to corporations, as in the Citizens United v. FEC decision, has been criticized for allowing corporations to exert undue influence over public discourse.
10. Global Influence: Multinational corporations can leverage their ‘personhood’ status in one jurisdiction to affect policies and economies in others, often without local accountability.
11. Competitive Disadvantage: Small businesses and individual entrepreneurs may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to corporations that can more effectively leverage their ‘personhood’ for legal and financial gains.
12. Legal Complexity: Corporate personhood adds a layer of legal complexity that can make it more challenging to enforce laws and regulations aimed at restraining corporate behavior.
These criticisms often intertwine and are deeply rooted in concerns about the balance of power between individuals, the state, and corporate entities. While the legal construct of corporate personhood can facilitate economic growth and efficiency, its societal implications remain a focal point of public discourse.
Very well-written and presented. Important events and concepts in American history which are little understood and not taught to students.
In other words, the first 2/3s of the article can be summed up In whatever is created for good; someone will use for evil’ due to the fall of mankind...
‘It’s not just advisable but crucial for citizens to become intimately familiar with the system of government that directly impacts their daily lives. This involves understanding the type of government—be it a mayor-council, council-manager, or commission form—as well as the classification of government, such as whether it operates under home rule, general law, or a specific charter. These classifications dictate how local governments can exercise their powers and interact with citizens, and they vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
Understanding these local government dynamics is essential for effective civic participation.‘.
However, the toolkit for individual citizens: priceless!!
Thank you! I’m saving your articles for action.
God bless you.🙏
Currently a Person is known as a fictional dead entity, a franchise, a corporation according to Blacks Law Dictionaries.
Are you saying that in the Republic there are no Blacks Law Dictionaries?
In 17sog.substack.com Definition of Person
The question is does the Court system in the Constitutional Republic use Blacks Law Dictionaries?
Yes, Black's Law Dictionary is widely used by lawyers (and also by judges) for legal definitions and understanding legal terminology, making it a crucial tool in legal research and argumentation. However, when it comes to interpreting the law, judges primarily rely on a broader range of resources and methodologies beyond just legal dictionaries. These include:
Statutory Text: Judges first look at the language of the statute itself, adhering to the principle that the statute's plain text is the most direct evidence of legislative intent.
Legislative History: For ambiguous statutes, judges may examine the legislative history, including committee reports, drafts of legislation, and legislative debates, to understand the context and intent behind the law.
Precedent: Judicial decisions from previous cases (stare decisis) provide a significant guide. Judges look at how past cases have interpreted similar statutes or legal principles to ensure consistency in the law.
Principles of Statutory Construction: There are established rules and principles for interpreting statutes, such as interpreting words in their ordinary meaning, avoiding interpretations that would result in absurd outcomes, and considering the statute in its entirety.
Commentaries and Treatises: Scholarly works, including legal commentaries and treatises, offer insights into legal principles and their applications. These works can provide a deeper understanding of complex legal issues.
Restatements of the Law: Published by the American Law Institute, Restatements are highly respected distillations of common law. They aim to articulate the consensus of the American courts on particular areas of law and are often cited by judges.
Legal Dictionaries: While not a primary source for legal interpretation, legal dictionaries like Black's Law Dictionary are used as supplementary tools for clarifying the meanings of specific legal terms and phrases.
Judges synthesize information from these various sources to interpret laws in a manner that is consistent with legislative intent, prior case law, and established legal principles. This process ensures that the interpretation and application of law are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of legal standards and societal values.
Judges also use canons of statutory interpretation. These canons are standard principles or rules that judges and courts use to interpret the language of legislation and legal texts when there is ambiguity or uncertainty about their meaning. These principles help ensure that interpretations are consistent and aligned with legislative intent. Some of the key canons of statutory interpretation include:
Plain Meaning Rule: If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, judges should apply the statute according to its plain terms without delving into other interpretive aids.
Ejusdem Generis ("of the same kinds"): When a list of specific items is followed by more general terms, the general terms are interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius ("the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another"): Mentioning specific items in a statute suggests that the legislature did not intend to include items not mentioned.
Legislative History and Intent: When the statutory language is ambiguous, judges may look at the law's legislative history and the overarching purpose behind its enactment to discern legislative intent.
Noscitur a Sociis ("it is known by its associates"): The meaning of a questionable word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.
Avoidance of Absurd Results: Courts should avoid interpretations of statutes that would lead to absurd, unreasonable, or unjust outcomes that Congress is presumed not to have intended.
Presumption Against Superfluities: Every word and clause in the statute should be given effect, with no part rendered insignificant or unnecessary.
I don't think people really understand how that dictionary actually works, so here's a short lesson, "Black's Law Dictionary" serves as a comprehensive reference for legal terms and phrases, and its utility extends across various facets of legal practice and study. Below is a step-by-step guide on how it is commonly used:
Step 1: Identifying the Term or Phrase
The first step is to identify the legal term or phrase that you wish to understand. This could be a term you've encountered in a legal document, court decision, or academic paper.
Step 2: Locating the Term in the Dictionary
Once you have identified the term, you would then locate it in "Black's Law Dictionary," either by flipping through the pages in a physical copy or using the search function in a digital version.
Step 3: Reading the Definition
After locating the term, read the definition provided. The definition often includes the term's origin, its usage in specific legal contexts, and citations to statutes or case law where the term has been defined or discussed.
Step 4: Understanding the Context
It's crucial to understand the context in which the term is used. Legal terms can have different meanings depending on the jurisdiction or the specific area of law. "Black's Law Dictionary" often provides this context.
Step 5: Cross-Referencing
Some definitions may refer you to related terms or concepts. It's often useful to read these related entries to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the term in question.
Step 6: Application
Finally, you would apply your understanding of the term to the legal issue or document you are working on. This could involve using the term correctly in a legal argument, interpreting a statute, or drafting a legal document.
Example 1: "United States"
In a legal context, the term "United States" can refer to the federal government, the geographical territory, or the collective states and territories. "Black's Law Dictionary" would provide these nuanced definitions, allowing for a more accurate interpretation of legal documents or statutes where the term is used.
Example 2: "Tort"
The term "tort" refers to a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. In "Black's Law Dictionary," you would find a detailed definition, including its origins and how it is used in various legal contexts like personal injury law, property law, etc.
In common parlance, a "person" generally refers to a human being. However, in legal contexts, the term can have a broader application. According to "Black's Law Dictionary," a "person" can refer to an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity that can possess legal rights and obligations. The definition may also include government agencies, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific statute in question.
How to Use "Black's Law Dictionary" for the Term "Person"
Identify the Term: You come across the term "person" in a legal document or statute and need to understand its specific legal meaning.
Locate the Term: You look up "person" in "Black's Law Dictionary," either by flipping to the 'P' section in a physical copy or using the search function in a digital version.
Read the Definition: The definition will elaborate on the various entities that can be considered a "person" in legal contexts, such as individuals, corporations, and sometimes even governmental bodies.
Understand the Context: The term's meaning can vary depending on the area of law (e.g., criminal law, corporate law) and jurisdiction. "Black's Law Dictionary" will often provide this context.
Cross-Reference: The definition may refer you to related terms like "natural person," "legal person," or "corporate personhood." Reading these can provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Application: Finally, you apply this nuanced understanding to interpret the legal document or statute where you encountered the term "person."
Understanding the term "person" in its legal context can significantly impact the interpretation of laws, contracts, and legal arguments. "Black's Law Dictionary" serves as an essential resource for such intricate understandings, offering clarity and precision in legal discourse.
Up until now because of birth certificates and the 14th Amendment we ARE seen a a franchise of a corporation… drivers license… marriage license… the registration of transportation… all fraud on the people that intentionally are mislabeled as persons so as to commit this very fraud onto us….
While you explanation and words sound like you know what you speak of I believe you are failing to see the bigger picture here. AND how this word person IS STILL BEING USED for trickery/fraud .
I think it would be much easier and more truthful if you just admitted that you don’t want to participate in your civic duties. Making excuses for that just isn’t going to work out. State laws can be changed. Rally to change them if your not happy with the laws in place. Now.
The requirements and procedures for issuing birth certificates can vary between states. Below are examples from California and Texas to illustrate this:
California:
• Information Included: In California, the birth certificate usually includes details like the child’s name, date of birth, place of birth, and parentage.
• Authority: California’s Department of Public Health, specifically the Office of Vital Records, is responsible for managing birth records.
• Home Births: For home births, the attendant or the mother has to file a birth certificate within 10 days of the birth.
• Amendments: The state allows certain information on a birth certificate to be amended, such as the name, under specific guidelines.
• Legal Framework: Governed by the California Health and Safety Code Sections 102400-102490.
Texas:
• Information Included: Similar to California, but Texas also requires the recording of additional medical and demographic information for statistical purposes.
• Authority: The Texas Vital Statistics Unit, part of the Texas Department of State Health Services, is the agency responsible for vital records.
• Home Births: If a birth occurs outside an institution in Texas, the birth must be registered within one year, and evidence to substantiate the facts of birth may be required.
• Amendments: Texas has a more stringent set of rules for amending a birth certificate. For instance, changes to the father’s name require a court order or the filing of an Acknowledgment of Paternity.
• Legal Framework: Governed by the Texas Health and Safety Code, Title 3. Vital Statistics, Chapters 191-195.
Differences:
1. Home Birth Registration Time: California requires home births to be registered within 10 days, while Texas allows up to one year with additional evidence.
2. Amendment Rules: Texas typically requires a court order for more significant changes, like the father’s name, while California has a broader set of guidelines that may not require court intervention.
3. Additional Information: Texas requires more extensive medical and demographic information for statistical purposes compared to California.
These differences reflect the states’ respective priorities and administrative procedures, though the core function of birth certificates as legal documents of identity and citizenship remains constant.
Laws and regulations governing birth certificates primarily reside at the state level in the United States. Each state has its own legal statutes and administrative codes that lay out the procedures for birth registration, issuance of birth certificates, and their legal uses.
State Level:
For example, in California, the Health and Safety Code Section 102400-102425 outlines the administrative procedures related to the registration of births. It specifies what information should be included, who is responsible for filing it, and other procedures.
Federal Level:
On the federal level, while there is no singular law that governs birth certificates across states, certain agencies like the U.S. Department of State do have regulations regarding what forms of birth certificates can be used for federal purposes, such as obtaining a passport. For instance, the U.S. Department of State specifies that a birth certificate must include certain information to be considered a “certified birth certificate” fit for federal identification purposes.
Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides guidelines and standards for birth registration through its National Vital Statistics System, but these are guidelines rather than enforceable federal laws.
Uniform Law:
Additionally, the Uniform Law Commission proposed a model “Revised Uniform Law on Vital Statistics” in 1977, aiming to provide states with a uniform legal framework for vital records, including birth certificates. This model law provides comprehensive procedures on birth registration, the issuance of certificates, and penalties for fraudulent activities. However, it’s up to each state to adopt these uniform laws, and adoption varies.
While the specifics may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the general legal and administrative framework for birth certificates in the U.S. is consistent: they serve as legal proof of identity, age, and citizenship, and are crucial for statistical and public health purposes.
Birth certificates are primarily governed by state laws and regulations in the United States, as the issuance of vital records falls under state jurisdiction. Each state has its own Vital Records Office responsible for birth certificates, and the formatting and specific information contained within may differ slightly from state to state. However, federal guidelines also exist to standardize some elements of birth certificates, particularly for the purposes of federal identification and statistical recording.
The primary legal purposes of a birth certificate are as follows:
1. **Legal Identification**: It serves as a fundamental form of identification, confirming details like name, date of birth, and parentage.
2. **Citizenship Verification**: For those born in the United States, a birth certificate is a primary document establishing U.S. citizenship.
3. **Legal Rights and Responsibilities**: It provides the basis for other legal processes, such as obtaining a Social Security number, enrolling in school, or qualifying for certain rights and benefits.
4. **Statistical Record**: It is also used for governmental record-keeping and statistical purposes, such as population tracking and public health monitoring.
The typical formatting, which can include features like security paper, watermarks, and official seals, is designed to deter forgery and fraud. In modern times, digital versions may also be used but must comply with specific security standards.
Federal guidelines may touch on what data elements should be collected at birth for the purpose of issuing a birth certificate, but the specifics are generally defined at the state level. The Uniform Law Commission has also proposed a model Vital Statistics Act, which some states use as a guideline for their own laws, but the adoption of these guidelines varies.
While there isn't a single federal statute that details what a birth certificate is, its purposes are well-understood and codified in various state and federal laws and regulations. Its format is designed for both security and official recognition.
The notion that a corporation is considered a "person" under U.S. law can be traced back to the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. However, the case itself did not explicitly establish corporate personhood. Instead, a headnote written by the court reporter, which does not carry the weight of law, indicated that the Justices presumed corporations were persons under the 14th Amendment. This set a precedent that has been cited in later cases.
The legal concept of corporate personhood means that a corporation has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under the law, similar to those of an individual. In essence, this form of "personhood" allows corporations to enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and exercise free speech.
However, corporations are not granted all the constitutional rights that a natural person would enjoy. For instance, they do not possess the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, they are subject to regulations and restrictions that might not be applicable to individual citizens.
Subsequent cases, most notably Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, expanded on the concept of corporate personhood by ruling that corporations, as "persons," have the right to freedom of speech, which in this context, includes the ability to make unlimited independent political expenditures.
The definition of a corporation as "a person" is thus not an assertion that a corporation is a living, breathing human being but rather a legal construct designed to facilitate the functioning of corporations within the legal system. This construct is one of the more debated elements in American constitutional law, given its ethical, social, and political implications.
Under what law does it say anything of what your claiming?
Not to be rude, but you really need to stop listening to one’s that cherry-pick information. You have things confused.
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment to include corporations as “persons” has been the subject of considerable debate and has generated various criticisms. Below are some of the primary points of contention:
1. Unequal Resources: Critics argue that giving corporations personhood status allows them to use their substantial resources to exercise disproportionate influence over political and legal systems.
2. Limited Liability: Unlike natural persons, corporations enjoy limited liability, which some argue gives them the benefits of personhood without many of the associated responsibilities or ethical obligations.
3. Political Influence: Corporate personhood can result in substantial political power through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, which many contend subverts democratic principles.
4. Perpetual Existence: Unlike human beings, corporations can exist in perpetuity, allowing them to amass wealth and influence indefinitely.
5. Social and Environmental Responsibilities: Critics say that treating corporations as persons absolves them from higher ethical or moral obligations to society or the environment.
6. Profit Motive: Corporations primarily exist to generate profit for shareholders, which some argue conflicts with the societal responsibilities that come with personhood.
7. Accountability: Critics assert that treating corporations as persons complicates legal accountability. It is often difficult to hold any single individual within a corporation accountable for the entity’s actions.
8. Constitutional Originalism: From a strict constitutionalist perspective, some argue that the framers never intended for the 14th Amendment to apply to corporations, thus questioning the legal validity of such an interpretation.
9. Free Speech: The extension of First Amendment rights to corporations, as in the Citizens United v. FEC decision, has been criticized for allowing corporations to exert undue influence over public discourse.
10. Global Influence: Multinational corporations can leverage their ‘personhood’ status in one jurisdiction to affect policies and economies in others, often without local accountability.
11. Competitive Disadvantage: Small businesses and individual entrepreneurs may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to corporations that can more effectively leverage their ‘personhood’ for legal and financial gains.
12. Legal Complexity: Corporate personhood adds a layer of legal complexity that can make it more challenging to enforce laws and regulations aimed at restraining corporate behavior.
These criticisms often intertwine and are deeply rooted in concerns about the balance of power between individuals, the state, and corporate entities. While the legal construct of corporate personhood can facilitate economic growth and efficiency, its societal implications remain a focal point of public discourse.