Supreme . . .

(from http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/supreme-court-just-handed-victory-obama-republicans-too-n381851 by Mark Murray)
". . . Had the Supreme Court invalidated the subsidies in some 30 states operating on the federal insurance marketplace, that would have affected nearly 6.4 million Americans, who would have seen their health costs skyrocket by about 300 percent. Republicans were ready to blame Obama for the potential chaos. But some of them acknowledged the GOP would get the brunt of the blame, especially since they backed the lawsuit challenging the subsidies. "[Obama will] have the ads all racked up with the individuals that have benefited from Obamacare on the backs of the American taxpayer," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., admitted in an April interview. Republicans also had been divided on how to respond. Some like Johnson wanted to extend the subsidies for Americans - in exchange for repealing the law's individual mandate. But others were in favor of letting the subsidies die, full stop. . ."

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 


OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak.  Please Visit http://www.ohomusic.com 


My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet  

Blog . . .

. . . yourself silly. . .

. . . if you CAN . . .


(from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-could-resume-flogging-raif-badawi-human-rights-watch-n373541)“. . . Saudi Arabia could resume flogging an activist as early as Friday after the country's Supreme Court upheld its sentence of 1,000 lashings and 10 years in prison, according to a human-rights group. Raif Badawi, 31, was convicted in 2013 of setting up a liberal website that Saudi officials said insulted religious authorities in the deeply conservative Muslim kingdom. The blogger's sentence was condemned by the United States, the United Nations and others. The State Department called it a "brutal punishment" and said Badawi had merely been "exercising his rights to freedom of expression and religion.". . . ”


The State Department seems to have overlooked the fact that in Saudi Arabia, no one has rights to freedom of expression and religion.  Couldn't they (we) have said (done) MORE!!????

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 


OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak.  Please Visit http://www.ohomusic.com 


My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet  

Citizens . . .

. . . United . . .


(from http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/)
The Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued:
1.    barring independent political spending amounts to squelching free speech protected by the First Amendment.
2.    the First Amendment protects not just a person’s right to speak, but the act of speech itself, regardless of the speaker. Therefore the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations and unions, whether we consider them people or not.
3.    although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis.
4.    the public has the right to hear all available information, and spending limits prevent information from reaching the public.

The Court minority (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) argued:
1.    the First Amendment protects only individual speech, not speech by associations of individuals.
2.    government may prevent corruption, and campaign spending can be corrupt when it buys influence over legislators. Therefore government may impose spending limits on corporations and unions.
3.    government may prevent the appearance of corruption, which undermines public confidence in democracy. Limits on corporate and union political spending are an expression of that authority.
4.    the public has the right to hear all available information, and when corporations spend money individuals can’t match, messages from corporations drown out messages from others, and that information fails to reach the public.

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 


OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD) OHO is Jay Graboski, David Reeve & Ray Jozwiak.  Please Visit http://www.ohomusic.com 


My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet  

Stand Up . . .

. . . and be counted. . .


The Vermont Legislature recently passed resolutions to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. . . you know. . . that's the one that gave birth to the Super PAC. Five Vermont Republicans actually voted in favor.  IT says that the government should have the right to regulate corporate spending on elections and that the Supreme Courts ruling was based upon a faulty legal precedent when it equated campaign financing to free speech. The population of the state gathered at 65 town meetings in one day demanding a constitutional amendment. The resolution also states that corporations ARE NOT persons. Similar resolutions have been passed in over 100 cities in the U.S. while 20 more have introduced resolutions.

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html 

OHO's "Ocean City Ditty," the CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)

My latest solo release, '2014', can be downloaded digitally at:

(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Person?. . .

(from www.MoveToAmend.org)
When it comes to constitutions, the application of law, and common sense, the Supreme Court of the United States could learn a thing or two from President Judge Debbie O’Dell-Seneca of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.

O’Dell-Seneca overruled a previous decision that sealed a settlement between a Mount Pleasant Township family and large energy corporations, which caused the family harm because of fracking on an adjacent property to their own. The Observer-Reporter and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pressed the suit, which ultimately decided the public’s right to be informed outstripped the corporation’s right to privacy.

In fact, O’Dell-Seneca went much further than that. The judge asserted corporations have no constitutional rights:

“...the constitution vests in business entities no special rights that the laws of this Commonwealth cannot extinguish. In sum, [corporations] cannot assert [constitutional privacy] protections because they are not mentioned in its text.”

“...it is axiomatic that corporations, companies, and partnerships have no ‘spiritual nature,’ ‘feelings,’ ‘intellect,’ ‘beliefs,’ ‘thoughts,’ ‘emotions,’ or ‘sensations,’ because they do not exist in the manner that humankind exists… They cannot be ‘let alone’ by government, because businesses are but grapes, ripe upon the vine of the law, that the people of this Commonwealth raise, tend, and prune at their pleasure and need.”

Despite the mainstream media’s blackout on any reporting that calls into question corporate personhood, this recent decision is an important victory for our movement.

CELDF (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund) Executive Director Thomas Linzey writes:  “The ruling represents the first crack in the judicial armor that has been so meticulously welded together by major corporations. And it affirms what many communities already know -- that change only occurs when people begin to openly question and challenge legal doctrines that have been treated as sacred by most lawyers and judges.”

Laws follow culture and the legal system adjusts as society's views shift. This case illustrates that we are collectively beginning to change hearts and minds about the appropriate role of the corporation in society, even amongst those who are entrenched in the current system.

What do you think?
Tell me at  
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

My latest release, Black & White Then Back,
can be downloaded digitally at:

(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak3)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Speaking. . .

. . .  Wednesday in Virginia, (Mitt) Romney said that "if the court upholds it, if they say look it passes the Constitution, it still is bad policy and that'll mean if I'm elected we are going to repeal it and replace it."

“LOOK IT PASSES THE CONSTITUTION”?????  (Is that the best you've got MITT???!!!)

(from factcheck.org)
With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on June 28, voters are guaranteed to continue hearing the same old false claims about the law from politicians. And President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wasted little time in taking to the airwaves to rehash plenty we’ve fact-checked before. Obama even threw in a few new claims.

    Obama reiterated his “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” refrain, despite the fact that at least a few million workers won’t keep their employer-sponsored plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The president also exaggerated the benefits of the law, such as the number of young adults who were able to join their parents’ plans, thanks to the law, and the number of individuals who will receive rebates issued by insurance companies that didn’t spend enough premium dollars on health care.

    Romney repeated a number of distortions, saying that the law would “cut Medicare” by $500 billion and that it “adds trillions to our deficits.” That’s a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years. And CBO says the law would reduce the deficit.

    Romney said the law is a “job-killer.” But CBO says the law would have a “small” impact on jobs, mainly affecting the amount of labor workers choose to supply. Those getting subsidies, for instance, might work less hours since they’re paying less for health care.

    Romney claimed the law “puts the federal government between you and your doctor.” The law would set minimum benefits packages, but medical services will not be government-run, nor does the law allow for rationing of care.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

You can NOW download your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Who knew . . .

there was any such thing as DNA when the constitution was written?  U.S. or state!

Maryland's Attorney General has filed a motion asking the state’s highest court to reconsider its ruling that it is unconstitutional to collect DNA samples from those arrested for crimes of violence. Also requested was a stay of its order until the Attorney General's office can appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Supporters of the DNA law have urged the Attorney General’s Office to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Federal courts, and nearly every state court considering the issue of collecting DNA samples from those arrested for crimes, have ruled the practice constitutional. Collecting the DNA of an arrested person is similar to fingerprinting suspects when they are arrested for crimes and then running the prints through a database.

(thanks to Gazette.net)

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Also download your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray Jozwiak

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet