Obamacare and the religious right
Comments
-
Corruption? What corruption? I don't see nuffin, but I see everything!MikeDamone said:
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.OZONE said:
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok. -
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.MikeDamone said:I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
-
feel free to secedeoregonblitzkrieg said:
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.MikeDamone said:I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
-
I would support it, but we would get attacked by the military if we did.Dick_B said:
feel free to secedeoregonblitzkrieg said:
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.MikeDamone said:I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
-
Sounds like you need to think this one through a bit more.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.MikeDamone said:I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
-
I think OBK has a sound structure to his argument - maybe not every detail and every issue, but the broader context is one that resonates with me.
Recall when the Constitutional Congress barely even created the US because everyone was so concerned about the "Nation" usurping States rights. Well, just as the Founders feared, it has come to pass. I have no solutions for this, as the issue is more complicated than I can fathom, but as a personal opinion, it sort of sucks that the judiciary and the federal government have basically made States their bitch - and it has been accelerating greatly (seemingly) over the last 50 years. In another 100 years you might as well just dissolve states, because they won't have any rights/laws left that haven't been rammed down their throats and federalized.
That Thomas Jefferson dude was pretty smart, and saw all this shit 3 decades after we formed. Governments number one goal has always been power consolidation and the trampling of liberty. Same as it ever was.
"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341
"Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated,... yet the spirit is not done away. The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:95
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146
-
My post above was way too serious. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
Agreed...
I was mostly referring to the idea that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear cases pertaining to social issues. I think OBK went off the rails a bit there.
Alexander Hamilton won. -
My beef with the latest nonsense from the Supremes is that we have gone way into the weeds of corporate personality - a corporation *is* a person for the purposes of political speech (Citizens United) and religious belief (Hobby Lobby - although I have never seen a corporation in church, myself) which ignores the fact that the whole purpose of corporations is to evade personal liability. And when corporations kill people (see the latest GM case) they don't go to jail or get the death penalty (or get dissolved).
-
At least Hamilton got bitch slapped in a duel. But yeah, that fucker won. And left us with this shit.MikeDamone said:Agreed...
I was mostly referring to the idea that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear cases pertaining to social issues. I think OBK went off the rails a bit there.
Alexander Hamilton won. -
At least they got last weeks rulings correct. They fucked up the ACA ruling a couple of years ago though.AZDuck said:My beef with the latest nonsense from the Supremes is that we have gone way into the weeds of corporate personality - a corporation *is* a person for the purposes of political speech (Citizens United) and religious belief (Hobby Lobby - although I have never seen a corporation in church, myself) which ignores the fact that the whole purpose of corporations is to evade personal liability. And when corporations kill people (see the latest GM case) they don't go to jail or get the death penalty (or get dissolved).
Are unions people?
And yes, corporate officers can and do go to prison for a variety of criminal offenses. Where did you get the idea that the whole purpose of a corporation is to evade personal liability? Avoiding personal tort liability for oneself certainly isn't the reason for forming a corporation. Because you can't avoid that liability.
Corporations can also be dissolved (see Enron and Arthur Andersen). -
It was Hamilton, among others I'm sure, that opposed the Bill of Rights, correct? His concern, sadly played out in full, that an enumerated Bill of Rights would be viewed by the State as a limitation of rights, codifying what exactly the rights of citizens were, instead of the broad assertions liberty held by citizens in the Constitution.
-
And as always, remember that He Just Needs Time to Get His Own Justices in There.
-
Are unions people?
This is a red herring.And yes, corporate officers can and do go to prison for a variety of criminal offenses.
And yet, corporations break criminal laws and typically get fined (at worst)Where did you get the idea that the whole purpose of a corporation is to evade personal liability?
From the definition of "corporation."
A corporation (sometimes referred to as a C corporation) is an independent legal entity owned by shareholders. This means that the corporation itself, not the shareholders that own it, is held legally liable for the actions and debts the business incurs
http://www.sba.gov/content/corporationAvoiding personal tort liability for oneself certainly isn't the reason for forming a corporation.
Okay, but I never said that.Corporations can also be dissolved (see Enron and Arthur Andersen).
But I've never seen one put to "death," even in cases where the corporate "person" killed people.
The point is that corporations have begun to claim rights hitherto reserved to actual people (free speech and religion). The rights are not germane to the corporate form, and the "limited" decision of the Court this week will reap a whirlwind in the future as corporate plaintiffs will begin to claim new rights which have historically only applied to individuals. I eagerly await the claim of a corporation that its religious beliefs prevent it from paying taxes.
-
This isn't new. Corporations were considered persons in the Middle Ages. And they have been ever since. When legislation makes a distinction between human beings as persons, they are described as natural persons. This is not a rightwing invention. It's the way it's been. Natural persons are collectively involved in corporations. Why should they have no rights as a collective?
AZduck, are you saying when natural persons find it necessary to band together voluntarily in a collective and form a corporation, they cannot confer any of their individual free-speech or religious freedom rights on that entity? -
AZDuck is pejorative saying "whole purpose of corporations is to evade personal liability" and Damoan is wrong to say "Avoiding personal tort liability for oneself certainly isn't the reason for forming a corporation." Well, maybe he's right on the tort part of it. The prime purpose of a corporation, and most particularly in US legal context a C-Corp, is to manage and mitigate personal risk, and to pool risk & reward of multiple persons, real or corporate. An owner or shareholder is only liable to extent of their capital invested in the corporation. Properly incorporated and managed, owning $100K of a company that goes bankrupt means you lose your $100K, but not your house or other assets.
True, you can't execute or jail a corporate person. But the government can and does sue corporations out of existence, or remove their ability to operate by revocation of licensing or other regulatory means.
The problem, or benefit depending on your view, of the corporate rights question is that the owners and actors of a corporation are real persons, presuming working in common interest. Can the State suppress free speech or anything else of real persons acting through the Corporate form? I know many do argue for just that, with the ultimate goal of either outlawing corporate persons or making them so useless as to be abandoned in practice. My real problem here is that if the State claims the right to tax a corporation, then the corporation must have the right to redress for grievances and all that. -
Damn Damoan and his 5.3 minutes.
-
Medieval forms often as not derive from civil or canon law, separate from the US common law tradition.
I'm saying that each corporate entity is a legal fiction designed with a specific purpose (usually, to make profits, sometimes, to advance a cause). As a general rule, I do not think that corporate actors should be endowed with human rights such as the right to donate to political causes or religion - with very limited exceptions such as churches.
In my view, Hobby Lobby is a for-profit closely held corporation. I do not believe that its shareholders can claim their personal religious beliefs through the corporate form. Should they choose to retain a claim to religious practice and belief, the corporation should be organized as a proprietorship or partnership.
A corporation is the product of State action, to serve a purpose that serves the interest of a State (namely, economic activity) - it is therfore secular by nature.
-
Disagree. The result of that is a mute revenue vehicle for State. If the State can collectively, on the part of its citizens, take taxes from a corporate entity, then the corporation collectively, on part of its owners, must have the right to be part of the political process.AZDuck said:I'm saying that each corporate entity is a legal fiction designed with a specific purpose (usually, to make profits, sometimes, to advance a cause). As a general rule, I do not think that corporate actors should be endowed with human rights such as the right to donate to political causes or religion - with very limited exceptions such as churches.
That makes some sense.AZDuck said:In my view, Hobby Lobby is a for-profit closely held corporation. I do not believe that its shareholders can claim their personal religious beliefs through the corporate form. Should they choose to retain a claim to religious practice and belief, the corporation should be organized as a proprietorship or partnership.
Strongly disagree. A corporation is the product of private action, formally recognized and protected by the laws of the State. It must serve the interests of its ownership. In my opinion, that is a crucial distinction.AZDuck said:A corporation is the product of State action, to serve a purpose that serves the interest of a State (namely, economic activity) - it is therfore secular by nature.
-
Hobby Lobby is an S corp. And while a corporation is formed by the sanction of the state, the owners are free to make decisions based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Would a kosher meat plant be required to slaughter hogs? That would be preposterous. I don't care what the reasoning is for a company doing something or not doing something that anyone else's has the right to do. If they didn't use their religion but just said they were not going to fund those types of birth control because of a whim, they should have that right.
