Unlimited Power to contract...

But ONLY as a state citizen!

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906),

“… we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination by the State.  The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.  He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. … He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

The terminology used by the judge, ‘constitutional rights’, implies state citizenship, whereas a US citizen has civil rights. The judge also explicitly refers to the petitioner as a State citizen,

“The corporation of which the petitioner was an officer was chartered by a State, and over it the General Government has no more control than over an individual citizen of that State.”

Important Questions that come to mind…

Does this mean that doctors and dentists don’t need a license. They certainly didn’t prior to whatever ‘law’ created medical licensing boards. And that law likely ONLY applies to US citizens, not state citizens. Same with just about any other occupation one can think of… but is this reasonable/possible in today’s world <article>?

Are you starting to get the picture as to the real differences between the two types of citizenship?