The conservatives I know are just as concerned.. seriously... But then again they are not mainline in politics.

My 2 concerns in this issue are the influx of Union money from organizations like the teachers unions which take $$ from the teachers and give to politics that everyone in the union doesn't agree with.. and the same with corporations..

Get the $$ out of politics..

Perhaps that's because you simply WANT to believe the improper assumption that "the 1886 decision was a pivotal point in legally assigning "person-hood" to corporations."

It is far from a "well-documented fact." It's just plain not true and horribly mis-informed. The information you C&P'd earlier (which is incorrect, and I've already shown you why) doesn't support that contention, either.

I find it intriguing that while you simply assert this is a "well documented fact" - with ZERO support for it - you simultaneously call for a need to see something to "dispute this fact."

What is clear is that you just haven't done any work on your own, to investigate and educate yourself on this. Instead, just choosing to cling to this ill-advised and mis-informed aspect of your already-announced bias against corporations.

Since you've evidenced your need to have someone spoon-feed you actual facts, here's some, that are right at your fingertips, if you really cared to know:

From Wikipedia:

"A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members."

"The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people". Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India."

See, also Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

From "HowStuff Works":

"Since corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia, the debate over whether they should be afforded the same rights as humans had been raging long before the 14th Amendment was adopted."

I could go on and on but, until you evidence some willingness to actually learn something you obviously do not yet know, and perhaps change your mind about the misinformation you are holding on to so tightly, I'm not sure it's worth it.


The debate is NOT about whether corporations are "covered by the Bill of Rights." And that is NOT what Santa Clara said.

As I said, corporations can't avail themselves of many things that individual citizens can, under the Bill of Rights. They can't demand education, the right to marry, they can't vote, etc.


To re-set:

There is an ongoing push and pull - as the recent SCOTUS ruling evidences - about HOW MUCH protection that is afforded to a real, natural person, can or should also be afforded to a corporation. Corporations have ALWAYS had some of the rights of a natural individual.

Decisions have held that corporations - and many other entities that aren't "people," such as newspapers - are entitled to what are seen as "basic rights" such as the 1st Amendment right to "free speech." They have held that corporations are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. But they have also held that corporations have no expectation of privacy, as a natural person does.

And the debate, and the cases, will go on to continue to address this issue - and bring more clarity to it.


And I'll say it again - because it's obvious that you've never read the Santa Clara decision, instead deciding to rely on bad, second-hand information about it - the decision NEVER ADDRESSES the application of the application of the 14th Amendment to a Corporation.

Not only does the decision NOT give a corporation that right, it never even ADDRESSES IT.

It just doesn't.

It's not in there.

Read it and you'll see for yourself.


Finally, it's a pretty untenable debating tactic to assert incorrect and unsupported "facts," refuse to listen to those who know more about it than you, and then to demand that those people provide you with citations and references to outside sources to try and change your mind.

They are going to pass this health care bill by hook or by crook, even though the majority of people are against it. It has leaked that Reid and Pelosi are going to have a signed pledge by the democrat majority that are for it, that promises that if the other democrats that are against it vote for it they will make the changes they want to the bill after it becomes law. That is how they are going to get it passed, by subverting the system.

See, they keep talking about it passing.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100127/D9DG65K80.html

Wow .. if they keep doing things like that, people are going to start think they're republicans!

The question is what is "the health care Bill".

It's pretty clear that what was being discussed just a couple of weeks ago is not longer viable. They'll likely keep working on it but, anything that does pass will certainly not be what was passed through the Senate this term or anything close to what was originally talked about.

Finally, you can't "make changes to the bill after it becomes law." That's not the way it works. If you want to change it after it is signed into law, then you have to amend the law. It's no longer a bill, at that point.

Right you are.

http://newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-reid-...omo_code=9600-1

Links? I don't think that's true. Without knowing exactly what's in the bill, who can say? Also, why would someone be against regulating these insurance companies who just raised premiums another 40%? What is the argument for NOT passing an insurance reform bill?

Wow.
What is it with people asking others to do their homework for them? Even when it is incredibly easy?



Most recent:

NBC (pro health care reform): "Just 32 percent say it's a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it's a bad idea."

Rasmussen Poll: "58% Don't want the health care plan to go forward. 61% don't want ANY health care reform. (yet 70% think it is likely to go forward, anyway)."

Earlier, this year:

Gallup Poll:

"Benefits of Healthcare Reform a Tough Sell for Americans

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-four percent of Americans believe a new healthcare reform law would improve medical care in the U.S., contrasted with 26% who say it would improve their personal medical care."


Huffington Post:

"Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do."

Even this NBC, pro-healthcare reform article agrees.




What you "think" is true is clearly untrue, as evidenced by the facts.

And it seems clear that many people are opposed to it largely BECAUSE they don't know what's in it. When the very Senators who have voted yes to the b Bill had to go on national television and say that they had no real idea what it was they just agreed to (despite it being the single largest piece of legislation in the last 20-30 years...), it didn't sit very well with the regular folks.




See above.

It's generally accepted logic to not blindly support a massive overhaul that you have no knowledge or clear understanding of (and that is being pushed through the system like a wheelchair-bound granny on the way to the early-bird special dinner).

I can't believe you are quoting Wikipedia, after slamming me for quoting Wikipedia on another issue, and using a news poll as evidence of anything.

1) I would never rely on Wikipedia as a sole source. Ever.

When I have to spoon-feed basic information about a sophomoric topic to someone who simply refuses to do ANY reading about it, at all however, it's fine to use it as one source.

2) Those are not "news polls" they are all independent polls, being REPORTED ON, in a few news articles.

You had asked for "links" indicating that "the majority of people are against [the pending health care reform bill]."

What ELSE did you think you'd get, in response to your request for evidence of national public opinion, other than polls?

Can you try any harder to avoid the plain fact that your "thinking" most Americans support the current health care reform legislation is just incorrect?