Could trust-busting literally undo the USSC's decision?

[Union Yes]

Of course, that would first require intestinal fortitude from the President.

If government uses anti-trust laws to break up mega-corps, wouldn't that lessen the blow to our democracy? Democracy was slapped down by the USSC.

Did you know..

Anti-trust laws were passed in part because corporations poised a perceived threat to our democracy.

The USSC's recent decision striking down corporate political advertising spending limits is a threat to our democracy.

Bust the fucking trusts!

Busting trusts would be the most patriotic act since the Revolutionary War.

:patriot:

[elleng]

1. Yes, indeed!!!!

GOOD OLD TEDDY R!!!

In the Eighth Annual Message to Congress (1908), Roosevelt mentioned the need for federal government to regulate interstate corporations using the Interstate Commerce Clause, also mentioning how these corporations fought federal control by appealing to states' rights:

— "Of course there are many sincere men who now believe in unrestricted individualism in business, just as there were formerly many sincere men who believed in slavery -- that is, in the unrestricted right of an individual to own another individual. These men do not by themselves have great weight, however. The effective fight against adequate government control and supervision of individual, and especially of corporate, wealth engaged in interstate business is chiefly done under cover; and especially under cover of an appeal to States' rights.... The chief reason, among the many sound and compelling reasons, that led to the formation of the National Government was the absolute need that the Union, and not the several States, should deal with interstate and foreign commerce; and the power to deal with interstate commerce was granted absolutely and plenarily to the central government... The proposal to make the National Government supreme over, and therefore to give it complete control over, the railroads and other instruments of interstate commerce is merely a proposal to carry out to the letter one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose, for which the Constitution was founded. It does not represent centralization. It represents merely the acknowledgement of the patent fact that centralization has already come in business...
— I believe that the more far-sighted corporations are themselves coming to recognize the unwisdom of the violent hostility they have displayed during the last few years to regulation and control by the National Government of combinations engaged in interstate business. The truth is that we who believe in this movement of asserting and exercising a genuine control, in the public interest, over these great corporations have to contend against two sets of enemies, who, though nominally opposed to one another, are really allies in preventing a proper solution of the problem. There are, first, the big corporation men, and the extreme individualists among business men, who genuinely believe in utterly unregulated business -- that is, in the reign of plutocracy; and, second, the men who, being blind to the economic movements of the day, believe in a movement of repression rather than of regulation of corporations, and who denounce both the power of the railroads and the exercise of the Federal power which alone can really control the railroads." <4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Theodore_Roosevelt

[aquart]

2. Intestinal fortitude? From this president?

Sure. It'll happen.

[JDPriestly]

3. No. We need to amend the Constitution to make this clear.