We can fix the Supreme Court Decision on Hobby Lobby...

[bl968]

We need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution - All rights specified in the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto shall apply to Natural Persons only.

We can call it the Commonsense clause.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. first we have to win back the House......and maitain control of Senate and the Executive...

[sheshe2]

10. Yes, VR.

We need to GOTV as if our lives depend on it. And they do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. Yes they do....they won't stop here....they want to take the pleasure out of unmarried sex.

[sheshe2]

12. Amazing that all these people from SCROTUS

to the GOP and Baggers have absolutely nothing better to do with their time in office than to take a stand in our uterus. I mean, just think about that for a moment. How sick is that? And the bastards keep doubling down on stupid!

They are all kinds of f**ked up, they seriously need to seek medical advice.

Ha. I should make that an OP.

[PoliticAverse]

2. The Hobby Lobby decision can probably be fixed by amending the RFRA, which might happen...

if the Democrats hold the Senate and get the House back in the November midterms.

[YarnAddict]

4. How could it be fixed?

the original RFRA protected Native Americans who use peyote in their ceremonies. What wording would protect religious minorities without infringing on the rights of other religious people?

[PoliticAverse]

5. The RFRA could be modified to make it clear it doesn't apply to any for-profit company, for example.

The Court relied heavily of the RFRA for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

It is, of course, possible the Court could reach the same decision without relying on the
RFRA however.

[MohRokTah]

7. Then it gets re-argued as a first amendment case.

I think the Opus Dei Five would still vote the same way.

[PoliticAverse]

9. You may be right, but the alternatives require either a constitutional amendment

or a Democratic President and a vacancy among one of the Republican-appointed justices.

This is probably why the White House has suggested a Congressional fix: http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/white-house-congress-should-fix-hobby-lobby/

Naturally such a fix would likely require the Democrats to hold the Senate and retake the House in November.

[valerief]

3. We need a shitload of things. nt

[bluesbassman]

6. Dimes to start with.

The William J LePetomaine Thruway opened today.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Always think of that scene when I hear "shitload".

[valerief]

15. Bwahahaha! nt

[Raine1967]

8. Natural Persons?

Do you mean human beings that are given birth by a woman? I could get behind that basic idea.

[HereSince1628]

22. That would be a constructed legal category--would it include a zygote, embryo or fetus?

Because if it did... well, "be careful what is wished for"

[onenote]

13. Bad fix

Unless you are in favor of holding Hustler magazine liable for defaming Jerry Falwell or in favor of allowing a damages action against the NAACP for organizing boycotts or in favor of the New York Times being stopped from publishing the Pentagon Papers or your local movie house being enjoined from showing Michael Moore's latest movie.

[bl968]

14. Onenote is incorrect

No because those issues can be handled through legislation. They however would not have these rights under the Constitution.

Also the publisher (a person) would have these rights, and could argue that the government infringed his rights. But the New York Times it's self wouldn't have any innate rights.

[onenote]

16. If a publisher has rights, then so too would any other corporate executive

As for relying on legislation to protect freedom of speech…no thanks.

[bl968]

21. Corporate Executive

You don't give up your rights on the basis of the job you undertake, but an individuals rights end at the person, a legal person's do not.

[TheKentuckian]

17. This is why the real solution is super boring and none to easily achieved, we need to overhaul

charter law. Corporations need limited personhood to function but those rights should be limited to what the purpose of the legal construct is and charter should be only granted if said function is beneficial to society and subject to being revoked when they no longer are.

One note is correct.

[bl968]

19. That is not correct and would be struck down by the Supreme Court

Unfortunately he isn't, because the courts and established case law designate corporations as legal persons and there is no distinction between rights granted to natural persons and legal persons, you first have to fix that first. You do that by designating consitutional rights are for natural persons only. Then you can designate specific rights through Charter Law for legal personhood, which are separate from the rights granted to natural persons.

[Nye Bevan]

18. So a Republican congress could pass a law saying that unions cannot engage in political speech.

A deep South state could pass a law saying that women's health organizations (such as Planned Parenthood) that support a woman's right to choose are not permitted to advertise. Anywhere.

A law could be passed banning corporate entities such as DemocraticUnderground LLC running politically oriented message boards during the six month period prior to a presidential election.

I'm not sure that you've really thought through the consequences here. Especially since a simple amendment to the RFRA would reverse the Hobby Lobby decision.

[bl968]

20. Not going to repeat myself

See #19 above...