Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Democrats set vote on legislation protecting birth control coverage (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, Hobby Lobby is a RFRA case, not (0+ / 0-)

    a Constitutional one. Congress has the power to define the limits of the laws it enacts.

    Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

    by Gary Norton on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:40:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely. But see some other comments about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      the purpose of RFRA WRT to American Indian religious practices and ask how you're going to change it without making it unconstitutional.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The indian practices involve individuals, (0+ / 0-)

        not artificial entities. And if there is concern that they involve tribes, include tribes in the definition of person. When writing definitions in law they can be tailored as wished.

        Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

        by Gary Norton on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:24:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Individuals do not lose their rights when they (0+ / 0-)

          associate with each other. That applies to tribes and it applies to corporations.

          The differentiation that makes sense to me is the difference between closely held private corporations and public corporations.  A public corporation is bought and sold as a commodity. There really is no association of individuals there.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:33:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site