Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Talk about using a bludgeon when a scalpel is called for...Congress can't just make any law - they have been struck down before and will be again.

Now, try again, because ultimately you're (probably) right, but are way wrong on the reasons why.

I've stated my case, given evidence and examples on how the bill is many things but don't see how its technically against the Constitution.

I've been trying to have a dialog on this and nobody else (except Lynah a bit) seems to want to lift a finger to substantiate their case. So I see no need to continue.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I've stated my case, given evidence and examples on how the bill is many things but don't see how its technically against the Constitution.

I've been trying to have a dialog on this and nobody else (except Lynah a bit) seems to want to lift a finger to substantiate their case. So I see no need to continue.

There was a post that pointed out that we'd already be single payer if our workforce hadn't developed over the years in such a way that Health Care got all tied up in employment. I think the biggest problem is the Feds now refuse to blow everything up and the new law tried to work within that context. The first thing that should happen is you take Health Care and employment and sever the two. That's either single payer, or run like car insurance where everyone goes out and buys their own policy. If everyone bought their own policy then we'd have real competition in the system instead of the crap we have now.

As for the Constitutionality. I have no clue but I bet dollars to doughnuts the Supremes are split 5-4 on the decision and it goes the direction of striking it down.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Anything not specifically delegated to Congress or implicitly necessary to achieve <s>their</s> the explicitly enumerated purposes of Article I, Section 8 is outside their jurisdiction, not the other way around.

Fixed yer fix.

Congress may not simply enact any law they like to achieve any purpose, no matter how noble that purpose may be. Their powers are supposed to be limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Your Hamilton quote specifically states that only measures which have an "obvious relation" to a "specified power" AND are "not forbidden" are allowed - I quite agree with him on that point.

The relationship between individuals' not buying health insurance and regulation of interstate commerce is not "obvious" to me.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I've stated my case, given evidence and examples on how the bill is many things but don't see how its technically against the Constitution.

I've been trying to have a dialog on this and nobody else (except Lynah a bit) seems to want to lift a finger to substantiate their case. So I see no need to continue.

The Constitution itself is the evidence. I could add the Federalist Papers. We are a nation of laws, not of men. What you support is a Banna Republic where whoever takes power can do whatever they want.

You're right though. Probably best to quit while you're behind.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

As for the Constitutionality. I have no clue but I bet dollars to doughnuts the Supremes are split 5-4 on the decision and it goes the direction of striking it down.

Oh, no doubt it'll be 5-4 with Kennedy casting the deciding vote, assuming no changes in membership before it reaches SCOTUS. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are guaranteed to say it doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Breyer will say it does. There's a minute chance Roberts swings over on this one given precedent, though highly unlikely. So we're at 4-4 and awaiting Kennedy.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Their powers are supposed to be limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

The relationship between individuals' not buying health insurance and regulation of interstate commerce is not "obvious" to me.

Yeah, but the same concern can be said about vegetables grown in a garden for home use. Yet that impacts interstate commerce enough to say Congress can regulate it.

Just saying...the commerce clause is a wide open door. It was closed slightly under Rehnquist, but as of yet that's still proving to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Oh, no doubt it'll be 5-4 with Kennedy casting the deciding vote, assuming no changes in membership before it reaches SCOTUS. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are guaranteed to say it doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Breyer will say it does. There's a minute chance Roberts swings over on this one given precedent, though highly unlikely. So we're at 4-4 and awaiting Kennedy.

If thats the case (which is how I see it too) I'm very curious to see the discenting opinion. I really want to see how the justify the constitionality of the law.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Oh, no doubt it'll be 5-4 with Kennedy casting the deciding vote, assuming no changes in membership before it reaches SCOTUS. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are guaranteed to say it doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Breyer will say it does. There's a minute chance Roberts swings over on this one given precedent, though highly unlikely. So we're at 4-4 and awaiting Kennedy.

So no chance Kagan recuses herself?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Oh, no doubt it'll be 5-4 with Kennedy casting the deciding vote, assuming no changes in membership before it reaches SCOTUS. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are guaranteed to say it doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Breyer will say it does. There's a minute chance Roberts swings over on this one given precedent, though highly unlikely. So we're at 4-4 and awaiting Kennedy.

I think you are overestimating Roberts. AFAIK he hasn't done anything to indicate he's anything but a hired man.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I think you are overestimating Roberts. AFAIK he hasn't done anything to indicate he's anything but a hired man.

But if they're going to lose 5-4 he might switch his vote so he can write the opinion himself.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Your Hamilton quote specifically states that only measures which have an "obvious relation" to a "specified power" AND are "not forbidden" are allowed - I quite agree with him on that point.

The relationship between individuals' not buying health insurance and regulation of interstate commerce is not "obvious" to me.

Of course, Hamilton's opponents made the same argument against a national bank. My general point isn't about the specifics of this case, but a refutation of the broad statement that the Constitution is a solely a straight-jacket blind to the complexity of governance. I don't find that statement either historically convincing, logically sufficient, or remotely practical, and I think it is at best an example of "Liberty for wolves is death to lambs."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

But if they're going to lose 5-4 he might switch his vote so he can write the opinion himself.

Would it carry any weight if there was a one man "majority opinion" and then a five person "concurrence"? (Honest question, I have no idea how these things are viewed.)

 

[ScoobyDoo]

The Constitution itself is the evidence. I could add the Federalist Papers. We are a nation of laws, not of men. What you support is a Banna Republic where whoever takes power can do whatever they want.

You're right though. Probably best to quit while you're behind.

If he is so behind then why will the ruling split 5-4 instead of 9-0?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

If he is so behind then why will the ruling split 5-4 instead of 9-0?

Activist Justices.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

If he is so behind then why will the ruling split 5-4 instead of 9-0?

Because 5mn's logic is not that of those defending the law. He's saying that the since Congress can make laws, they can make any law they please. Those defending the law in actual courtooms are saying that it falls under the commerce clause and that a person who is alive is by definition a part of the health care system.

I guarantee if someone did take up a defense of the law based on 5mn's logic it would be nearer to 9-0 than 5-4.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Because 5mn's logic is not that of those defending the law. He's saying that the since Congress can make laws, they can make any law they please. Those defending the law in actual courtooms are saying that it falls under the commerce clause and that a person who is alive is by definition a part of the health care system.

I see. So he is just making the wromg argument. The case on both sides seems pretty strong to me.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So no chance Kagan recuses herself?

Why would she?

Her former position (solicitor general) only gets involved at the higher levels, and to the best of my knowledge, the solicitor general's office has yet to get involved in the health care debate.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Of course, Hamilton's opponents made the same argument against a national bank. My general point isn't about the specifics of this case, but a refutation of the broad statement that the Constitution is a solely a straight-jacket blind to the complexity of governance. I don't find that statement either historically convincing, logically sufficient, or remotely practical, and I think it is at best an example of "Liberty for wolves is death to lambs."

Yes, rules are often pesky and inconvenient. But that's no reason to dismiss them out of hand or, worse, selectively ignore them. If Congress "needs" a certain power, there is a way for that to happen - go to the people and ask them to explicitly GRANT Congress that power. It worked for the prohibitionists (and anti-prohibitionists), those in favor of the income tax, etc.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Would it carry any weight if there was a one man "majority opinion" and then a five person "concurrence"? (Honest question, I have no idea how these things are viewed.)

No. There are times where there's a 4-1-4 split, with the 1 concurrence in the result being the deciding vote but basically meaning none of the opinions are worth jack. There's some where justices agree solely "as to parts A, C & D" - but there'll never be an opinion where the majority opinion is written by one guy, and the 5 other votes agree "as to part A and the result, but not parts B, C, D, E, and F."

If there's 5 or more that agree, that's the majority opinion by operation of law. The one is a concurrance only.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Yes, rules are often pesky and inconvenient. But that's no reason to dismiss them out of hand or, worse, selectively ignore them. If Congress "needs" a certain power, there is a way for that to happen - go to the people and ask them to explicitly GRANT Congress that power. It worked for the prohibitionists (and anti-prohibitionists), those in favor of the income tax, etc.

I think Jefferson made the argument a tad more eloquently but I still don't buy it entirely.