Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

To answer clearly seems to be the commerce clause. I guess my point is to say that that in and of itself doesn't get you home free so to speak, that argument by itself carries with it some issues. (Which is a far better way to phrase it than "debunked", I admit).

Oh, certainly. Which is why as cumbersome as it is, a simple tax adjustment would've been the better choice, as the taxing and spending clause or the so called "power of the purse strings" has never been overruled, to the best of my knowledge. Adjust the income tax upwards by X across the board, but give everyone with insurance (or proof they're on medicaid/medicare) a credit that magically equals X.

But that's probably too large a step towards a single payer option, so that wouldn't happen.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

It also brings up the uncomfortable question of what happens if Congress passes a law that the majority of people don't want...

Of course, a significant fraction of those who "oppose" the health care bill do so because they don't think it went far enough. It's something like 1/3rd want it repealed, slightly less than 1/2 like/approve/want to keep it, 1/5th don't think it went far enough. (bad math due to rounding errors).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I guess the argument goes like this: If it's a popular policy, then people must think it's good for the country. If it's good for the country, then it must be helping the general welfare. If it's helping the general welfare, then it must be constitutional.

Sounds more like tyranny of the majority to me.

Time to shift the argument to a tangential detail.

It doesn't matter what metric you use...micromanaging peoples spending and access to assault weapons is not in the welfare of the country. They would likely not be Constitutional and should be struck down by the courts.

I have seen zero evidence that improving access to healthcare is not in the welfare of the nation. You may disagree with the policy...but it is on the table to be discussed.

Congress does not have the unfettered power to provide for the general welfare of the country, but rather to <em>raise money</em> to do so (via taxes, duties, imposts, and excises). That's an important distinction, and one that I think 5_mn is ignoring. It's the revenue-raising power that is essentially unfettered.

Sorry, not true. Read the sentence again.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States

Couple that with:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I have seen zero evidence that improving access to healthcare is not in the welfare of the nation. You may disagree with the policy...but it is on the table to be discussed.

We could also improve access to healthcare by taking a random sample of 20 million people from the population and summarily executing them. With them out of the way, there'd be more healthcare for the rest of us. That would improve access to healthcare and be in the welfare of the nation.

You may disagree with the policy of course...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Of course, a significant fraction of those who "oppose" the health care bill do so because they don't think it went far enough. It's something like 1/3rd want it repealed, slightly less than 1/2 like/approve/want to keep it, 1/5th don't think it went far enough. (bad math due to rounding errors).

I'm really just using this as a hypothetical example, anyway, but if you were really to consider the polls when assessing the constitutionality of a law, then it shouldn't matter why people are against a particular law. I'm sure people are for it for a variety of reasons as well. Whose reasons are the valid ones?

The fact remains that Congress has voted in *numerous* laws that would not have been favored by a majority of voters over the years. Should all those be considered unconstitutional?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

We could also improve access to healthcare by taking a random sample of 20 million people from the population and summarily executing them. With them out of the way, there'd be more healthcare for the rest of us. That would improve access to healthcare and be in the welfare of the nation.

You may disagree with the policy of course...

If "random" is negotiable, we could have a basis for discussion here... ;-)

IINM, most modern (post-1900) democratic institutions enshrine rights to both public education and health care. The US simply was a little too quick off the mark. However, a Constitutional amendment would solve the legal problem.

The argument about Constitutionality is possibly valid (that's what the Court is for), however may I also point out in passing it's a tool inevitably used by vested interests to suppress discussion of a given policy on the merits? Move this discussion to, say, the state of Maryland or Colorado where the powers argument disappears and the anti- logic has to become substantive rather than simply procedural.

I wonder how many people against national public health care on Constitutional grounds are in favor of it at the state level?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

We could also improve access to healthcare by taking a random sample of 20 million people from the population and summarily executing them...that would improve access to healthcare and be in the welfare of the nation.

Uh, no...it wouldn't be in the welfare of the nation and would be unconstitutional. See, the Constitution works...your approach, not so well.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I wonder how many people against national public health care on Constitutional grounds are in favor of it at the state level?

That's the argument Romney has to make, and by the looks of it, not many. Hell, with Huntsman getting in, he may not even win the Mormon vote anymore.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I think this article sums up the democratic position very well.

"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote (the judge who ruled the new law unconstitutional), "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Well, no, your honor. Broccoli alone does not make you healthy and you and I don't have to pay directly for its lack. Broccoli isn't responsible for driving up the costs of a huge business across state lines. Lack of insurance by millions of so-called passive people is one such factor. You and I pay for the uninsured in our premiums.

So, it's constitutional for us to have to pay more for the health care freeloaders, but it is unconstitutional to insist that they pay for themselves? And that's because government can't insist on people buying anything?

But governments insist on people buying things all the time at every level. Homeowners must buy snow shovels to keep sidewalks clear, business owners must meet myriad expensive requirements, motorists must replace old tires, parents must feed their children and we must all buy clothes. You'll get in trouble if you don't. Don't believe me? Just try turning up at the Supreme Court naked (this experiment not advised in the winter months).

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Sorry, not true. Read the sentence again.

I read it just fine. Why don't you try again? You're clearly misreading it.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States

"Congress shall have power" connects ONLY TO "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises."

The purposes for which they may do same are then enumerated: "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States".

That does NOT give Congress unilateral power to provide for the common defence and general Welfare. It merely gives Congress unilateral power to RAISE AND SPEND MONEY TO provide for the common defense and general Welfare. There's a substantial gulf between the two, and the necessary and proper clause does not change that.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

But governments insist on people buying things all the time at every level. Homeowners must buy snow shovels to keep sidewalks clear, business owners must meet myriad expensive requirements, motorists must replace old tires, parents must feed their children and we must all buy clothes. You'll get in trouble if you don't. Don't believe me? Just try turning up at the Supreme Court naked (this experiment not advised in the winter months)

Well no, not quite. First of all, many of the "mandates" this guy cites are at a state or local level, so he's to some degree comparing apples to oranges. But set that aside for a moment.

First of all, a regulation keep a sidewalk clear is not a mandate to buy a shovel. It's a mandate to keep your sidewalk clear. That can be done in a variety of ways (in theory). That's a pedantic thing though.

Next, the problem that all of the scenarios cited run into is that they are all contingent on doing something. Don't want to be responsible for shoveling snow? Don't own a home/enter into an agreement giving you that responsibility. Regulations on business apply if you own or operate a business. Don't want them to? Don't own a business. Don't want to replace the tires on your motor vehicle? Don't own/ride one. Don't want to be mandated to provide for your kids? Don't have kids.

The health care mandate on the other hand, is not contingent upon you doing a single thing. Other than being alive that is. That's the difference.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

That's the argument Romney has to make, and by the looks of it, not many. Hell, with Huntsman getting in, he may not even win the Mormon vote anymore.

Romney has money. A lot of money. To me he looks like the most dangerous challenger to Obama, but of course I would think that, since to me his policy stances seem like an island of sanity (albeit completely disingenuous -- he makes John Kerry look like a Man of Unshakeable Principle) in the cesspool of insanity that is the current GOP.

Romney could beat Obama the way Clinton beat Bush -- a pragmatist with no principles but good curb appeal beating another pragmatist handicapped by having a record to run on and economic hard times to be blamed for.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Well no, not quite. First of all, many of the "mandates" this guy cites are at a state or local level, so he's to some degree comparing apples to oranges. But set that aside for a moment.

First of all, a regulation keep a sidewalk clear is not a mandate to buy a shovel. It's a mandate to keep your sidewalk clear. That can be done in a variety of ways (in theory). That's a pedantic thing though.

Next, the problem that all of the scenarios cited run into is that they are all contingent on doing something. Don't want to be responsible for shoveling snow? Don't own a home/enter into an agreement giving you that responsibility. Regulations on business apply if you own or operate a business. Don't want them to? Don't own a business. Don't want to replace the tires on your motor vehicle? Don't own/ride one. Don't want to be mandated to provide for your kids? Don't have kids.

The health care mandate on the other hand, is not contingent upon you doing a single thing. Other than being alive that is. That's the difference.

Correct. And probably why 99.9% of the developed industrial democratic world has gone the single payer route. Of course most of us are afraid of that. For some reason America used to be able to do everything BETTER than the rest of the word. But, single payer we can't. Supposedly we have the greatest Health Care system in the world. But, we're the only one that doesn't cover (everyone) and we are the MOST expensive out there.

So, what do we really do? I think we have two choices. Go single payer OR start making people truly pay for the choices they make.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Next, the problem that all of the scenarios cited run into is that they are all contingent on doing something. Don't want to be responsible for shoveling snow? Don't own a home/enter into an agreement giving you that responsibility. Regulations on business apply if you own or operate a business. Don't want them to? Don't own a business. Don't want to replace the tires on your motor vehicle? Don't own/ride one. Don't want to be mandated to provide for your kids? Don't have kids.

The health care mandate on the other hand, is not contingent upon you doing a single thing. Other than being alive that is. That's the difference.

I think you take it a bridge too far by citing kids. That's pretty much in the same sphere as being alive for most people. I'm not saying that's logical, but it isn't really regarded as a deliberately chosen activity the way buying a house is. However I don't think you need to include it as an example, since its motivation and justification has to do with the rights of the kids themselves, more than the compelling state interest of regulating a private activity.

I'm sure you appreciate me tidying up your argument.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I read it just fine. Why don't you try again? You're clearly misreading it.



"Congress shall have power" connects ONLY TO "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises."

The purposes for which they may do same are then enumerated: "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States".

That does NOT give Congress unilateral power to provide for the common defence and general Welfare. It merely gives Congress unilateral power to RAISE AND SPEND MONEY TO provide for the common defense and general Welfare. There's a substantial gulf between the two, and the necessary and proper clause does not change that.

That is very much interpretation...and not at all the way it was interpeted and handled under the country's first administrations (ie those of the founding fathers).

And additionally, the courts cannot satisfy a strict burden of proof of unconstitutionality using an unestablished interpretation.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Romney has money. A lot of money. To me he looks like the most dangerous challenger to Obama, but of course I would think that, since to me his policy stances seem like an island of sanity (albeit completely disingenuous -- he makes John Kerry look like a Man of Unshakeable Principle) in the cesspool of insanity that is the current GOP.

Romney could beat Obama the way Clinton beat Bush -- a pragmatist with no principles but good curb appeal beating another pragmatist handicapped by having a record to run on and economic hard times to be blamed for.

You're making an argument for the general election though. (Which I have to point out, worked out just great for John McCain). I'm talking about the primary election, where he'll be lucky to finish third.

I think you take it a bridge too far by citing kids. That's pretty much in the same sphere as being alive for most people. I'm not saying that's logical, but it isn't really regarded as a deliberately chosen activity the way buying a house is. However I don't think you need to include it as an example, since its motivation and justification has to do with the rights of the kids themselves, more than the compelling state interest of regulating a private activity.

I'm sure you appreciate me tidying up your argument.

I'm outraged that you would suggest my argument needed tidying.

But yeah, I see your point.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

You're making an argument for the general election though. (Which I have to point out, worked out just great for John McCain). I'm talking about the primary election, where he'll be lucky to finish third.

If these things go in cycles and the GOP is following the Dem curve:

1980 Carter = 2004 Dubya (weak, incompetent incumbent needing a miracle to win re-election)
1984 Mondale = 2008 McCain (colorless old guy whose turn it is)
1988 Dukakis = 2012 ? (awkward technocrat new to the national scene)
1992 Clinton = 2016 ? (pragmatist with no principles but good curb appeal)

the next lamb to be slaughtered should be an awkward technocrat new to the national scene. Hmm.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm curious to see what kind of effect the Tea Party manages on a Presidential primary race.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm curious to see what kind of effect the Tea Party manages on a Presidential primary race.

I'm curious to see whether the RNC locks them out of it, the way the Hillary DNC failed to do with Obama.

2012 is supposed to be a golden year for the GOP in the Senate, as all those fat, vulnerable 2006 Dems are up for grabs. They aren't going to want to blow that on Sarah the Martyr, they're going to want somebody who can help them flip FL, MI, MT, NJ, OH, PA, VA and WV, and nominating somebody who runs up the score in the slave states but alienates the purple states aint gonna cut it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm curious to see whether the RNC locks them out of it, the way the Hillary DNC failed to do with Obama.

2012 is supposed to be a golden year for the GOP in the Senate, as all those fat, vulnerable 2006 Dems are up for grabs. They aren't going to want to blow that on Sarah the Martyr, they're going to want somebody who can help them flip FL, MI, MT, NJ, OH, PA, VA and WV, and nominating somebody who runs up the score in the slave states but alienates the purple states aint gonna cut it.

Yep. Michelle Bachmann for the win.