… seems to be to think about a problem (let’s say,people being denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions – you, know, things like cancer and other things that affect a lot of adults). Then, think of the best possible solution. Then do the exact opposite (from one of the latest health care revisions being tossed around):
Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.
If you thought the last 15 years were bad, you’re gonna love the next fifteen, lemme tells ya.
thanks to the Supreme Court decision. Anyone now in Congress who doesn’t serve the interests of corporate America can kiss reelection “goodbye!”
does it take to actually get an ammendment to the Constitution passed.
I call upon our delegation to get to work on it. No more corporate intrusion into the rights of individual citizens.
Several years ago Florida wanted to control billboards.. Free speach was the upcry from advertisers who owened the now hugh television screens that have replaced the paper variety which were replaced by the plastic, and then the rotating 3in1…
Anything without a naturally occuring voice box should not…… ah what the heck….
The fundamental rights of America are awarded to the Citizens. enough is enough
so no amendment is necessary. Nader et al have been talking about this for some time. Democrats should do a better job of doing it also.
http://www.votenader.org/issue…
In its decision, the Supreme Court cited more than 20 different decisions in which it has interpreted the First Amendment as extending rights to corporations, going back to 1952. Thus, it seems pretty clear that the judiciary has spoken on that issue. A constitutional amendment would be needed, and would pose a whole host of other problems (for instance, newspapers are corporations).
Or, you need to impeach sitting justices and replace them, which is not in the cards.
How does a republican vote against this:
“Corporations have no rights other than those explicitly granted by the Congress and the several states, and at no time do those rights match or exceed those of citizens.”
Their own teabaggers would hang them if they voted that corporations had more rights than citizens…
is the best answer to this Supreme Court decision. All national elections (and eventually, all state and local elections) should be publicly funded from a single shared pool. As I said in an earlier posting, this does not have to be a significant burden on taxpayers because information technology is so efficient and cheap to operate that much of the ballyhoo we’ve become accustomed to could be replaced by simple inexpensive informational campaigns that would be funded largely by contributions-in-kind required from broadcasters and other media outlets that are licensed by we-the-people, and who benefit from access to the public. This air time would be shared equally by all the candidates and print media would be required to give equal space to opposition views. No personal appearance junkets, chicken suppers, hats or streamers are necessary to keep the public well-informed. No candidate would have an advantage due to his or her superior personal worth because he or she could not use more than, say, $10,000. to fund travel and incidentals.
Funny, all these comments seem to belong to another thread, that one about corporate personhood.
So, howzabout those Democrats?