ObamaRama 8

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I agree with term limits, and every once in a while you hear about it as a viable issue during election season. Yet, the issue is usually killed by those who hold seats for a lifetime, i.e., Kennedy, Brunella Frank, Thurmond. However, it is still them dip-##its that keep voting them in.

Snowe is an enigma, but like you I also sense she is out. BRACC 5, and a host of other socially liberal values she holds did her in.

I will say, I am glad to see that gay marriage went to vote in Maine; and the people spoke. I do think Maine (like the rest of the pro-gay marriage states) will just make it legal by by-passing another vote.

Best bumper sticker of 2009:

"Say, how's that change and hope working out for ya?!"

 

[gregg729]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Ummm, Congress passes laws? Jesus.

Show me where the FAA is allowed in the Constitution.

And how is it trying to prove a negative that it's unconstitutional? If it's as blatantly unconstitutional as Plante says, it should be easy to demonstrate how.

Umm, you really think Congress is allowed to pass laws on anything and everything? Jesus.

Rufus, let me give you some advice. You should read the Constitution. You are really uneducated. Even a moron knows that all powers that are not specifically granted to Congress are reserved states' rights. I'm not going to quote the part of the Constitution that actually says that - I learned it back in junior high and if you didn't, the onus is on you to fix your educational deficiency. If you're too lazy to read the Constitution before you comment on it again, then I guess that proves the worth of your comments on here.

Also, the burden is now back on you to show where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact coverage for medical care.

The "general welfare" clause (as it was originally intended) was supposed to mean that the laws had to be applicable to everyone and already be called for in the constitution. The entire document is about negative rights for government with the exception of a select few things that are specifically laid out (i.e. defense). I highly doubt they would suddenly put this one positive right in there.

Hamilton's explanation

There was a lot of debate as to whether the Bill of Rights should even be added to the constitution because the gov't already couldn't do any of those things. As an example, the gov't already couldn't limit free speech.

If someone is actually dumb enough to think that the preamble to the Constitution actually authorizes welfare checks and medical coverage, I'm not really sure this explanation is going to make a dent.

Personally though, I don't think anyone's that dumb. Using the preamble as a justification for Congress leaping into the insurance business is an intellectual copout - it's waving the white flag to trying to come up with a reasonable and logical reason for this idiotic, fly-by-night bill that only liberals and illegal aliens are in favor of. It's basically putting lipstick on a pig, a friendly way of saying the ends justify the means.

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

So they had to do this in the midnight hours of a Sunday night for a bill that I suppose that nobody has still read... what does that say for our nation, rufus?

 

[gregg729]

Re: ObamaRama 8

So they had to do this in the midnight hours of a Sunday night for a bill that I suppose that nobody has still read... what does that say for our nation, rufus?

Not to mention in the middle of a blizzard that dumped nearly 2 feet of snow on DC.....

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Not to mention in the middle of a blizzard that dumped nearly 2 feet of snow on DC.....

I heard that Barney Frank gave the party favors!

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I do think Maine (like the rest of the pro-gay marriage states) will just make it legal by by-passing another vote.[/I]

They won't have to do that. Gay marriage will come as soon as the old curmudgions die off and the electorate changes naturally.

 

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Umm, you really think Congress is allowed to pass laws on anything and everything? Jesus.

Um, yes. That is their role within the three branches of government. The Courts set the limits and determine the Constitutionality of those laws.

So, the burden of proof is on those alleging that this bill is unconsitutional.

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Here's the best explanation I can find:

Which still ignores the fact that under the Commerce Clause, Congress's power has been expanded exponentially since FDR's days.

If crops grown solely for your own use are considered to be in interstate commerce (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)), a national healthcare plan surely is as well.

This isn't any more unconstitutional than the NRC fining nuclear power plants or the EPA fining anyone and anything.

 

[gregg729]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Um, yes. That is their role within the three branches of government. The Courts set the limits and determine the Constitutionality of those laws.

So, the burden of proof is on those alleging that this bill is unconsitutional.

Including setting laws on free speech and freedom of the press, right?

Ummm no, that is not their role. You are completely wrong. The Constitution itself directly refutes you. You should read it before continuing to talk about it.

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I'm not going to quote the part of the Constitution that actually says that...Also, the burden is now back on you to show where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact coverage for medical care.

Yeah, that 10th Amendment is so hard to quote (you did know it was the 10th Amendment, right?)...

Look, I found it in 5 seconds.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See my post below for why it's going to be deemed Constitutional. And if you want to win an actual lawsuit declaring this bill unconstitutional, you'll have to do better than the 10th Amendment.

 

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Ummm no, that is not their role. You are dead wrong, the Constitution itself directly refutes you. You should read it before continuing to talk about it.

I have read it, several times. Congress passes laws - that's what they do. They occasionally pass laws that someone thinks are unconsitutional, those laws are challenged in the courts, and eventually the Supreme Court offers their judgment.

Also, as unofan notes above - the Constitution alone doesn't tell you much, you need to look at the long body of jurisprudence that's been assembled. Rest assured, under the interpretations of the Commerce Clause, Congress most certainly has the ability to pass this legislation, and it will be held up if challenged.

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I have read it, several times. Congress passes laws - that's what they do. They occasionally pass laws that someone thinks are unconsitutional, those laws are challenged in the courts, and eventually the Supreme Court offers their judgment.

Also, as unofan notes above - the Constitution alone doesn't tell you much, you need to look at the long body of jurisprudence that's been assembled. Rest assured, under the interpretations of the Commerce Clause, Congress most certainly has the ability to pass this legislation, and it will be held up if challenged.

which means they can pass laws on almost anything and have them upheld. Why do we have states?

 

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

which means they can pass laws on almost anything and have them upheld. Why do we have states?

What do you mean by the bolded portion? Congress cannot just 'have laws upheld." That's up to the Supreme Court.

Rest assured, they can pass just about anything they want (in theory). They won't, because there are political issues with doing so.

Just look at the line-item veto. Passed, used by Clinton, challenged, and then declared unconstitutional. That's how the system works.

The Supreme Court makes it a point to not answer 'political questions,' meaning they do not rule on laws that are not already on the books. Hence, the only way for this to be challenged as unconstitutional is for it to actually be enacted as law in the first place.

Jesus. I'm not even a lawyer, but this is pretty basic stuff.

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

What do you mean by the bolded portion? Congress cannot just 'have laws upheld." That's up to the Supreme Court.

Rest assured, they can pass just about anything they want (in theory). They won't, because there are political issues with doing so.

Just look at the line-item veto. Passed, used by Clinton, challenged, and then declared unconstitutional. That's how the system works.

The Supreme Court makes it a point to not answer 'political questions,' meaning they do not rule on laws that are not already on the books. Hence, the only way for this to be challenged as unconstitutional is for it to actually be enacted as law in the first place.

Jesus. I'm not even a lawyer, but this is pretty basic stuff.

Sure is... and all you are mentioning is semantic points... so please, don't play dumb with me... they can pass a law tomorrow banning the shoes that you are wearing punishable with a $10,000 fine and a 10 year jail term and it'd all be legal under your style of jurisprudence... when did the federal gov't get that kind of power?

 

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Sure is... and all you are mentioning is semantic points... so please, don't play dumb with me... they can pass a law tomorrow banning the shoes that you are wearing punishable with a $10,000 fine and a 10 year jail term and it'd all be legal under your style of jurisprudence... when did the federal gov't get that kind of power?

You're making the mistake of equating what I'd like with what the law says - more importantly, what the processes of the law are.

So, let's say that shoe law is passed. Again, leaving aside the political problems those legislators would encounter, let's say it's signed into law and goes into effect immediately.

The Supreme Court only hears cases and controversies. Courts can issue stays and other such stopgaps in cases of irreparable harm, but otherwise, they'd have to wait until an actual case or controversy is presented to them on that particular law. That is, someone gets arrested for wearing shoes. They challenge the law in court, the case goes to the Supremes, and the Supremes strike down the law for reasons X,Y, and Z.

This is not new. However, it's a mistake for you to ask "when did the federal gov't get that kind of power?" You are clearly directing your ire at one arm of the government - the legislature. The legislative branch has always held that power. This is how checks and balances work. There are established procedures that need to be followed, and for good reason.

Separation of powers. This is basic stuff.

 

[walrus]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Sure is... and all you are mentioning is semantic points... so please, don't play dumb with me... they can pass a law tomorrow banning the shoes that you are wearing punishable with a $10,000 fine and a 10 year jail term and it'd all be legal under your style of jurisprudence... when did the federal gov't get that kind of power?

WHy use this as an example when reality is, they are going to force you to buy health insurance, when did they get that kind of power?

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Wow, its a full fledged drooling knuckledragger convention out here. Yaba daba doooooo!


Lets address a few of the (bizarre) points raised out here by our righty friends:

1) The notion that this is unconstitutional is as realistic as those lawsuits against the govt's right to levy federal income taxes. While the argument my stir the glands of neo-cons, it has no basis in reality and gets shot down repeatedly. Back when the Louisiana Purchase was being completed, the ideological forebearers of the current do-nothing Republicans made the argument, all the way to the Supreme Court, that nothing in the Constitution authorized Jefferson to do this. His argument, that nothing in the Constitution prohibited this, hence its legality, won out.

2) I'm terribly amused by the stupidity of the anti-health care arguments. As nobody has taken up the question of the last time a GOP Congress enacted a deficit reduction bill, lets move on to other matters. If a bill can cover 30M more people, all the while reducing the debt by trillions, is that not better than the current system, and far better than anything the opposition party has ever producted? Yes, and yes. Lets say the bill, 5 years down the road, has something that needs adjusting. Then go ahead and do it. The heavy lifting is already done.

3) It amazed me how do-nothing and petty the GOP has become. Maybe we should have seen this coming with the death panels argument, but really the depth to which that party has sunk is amazing. Even funnier is the notion that its the Dems fault this bill isn't bipartisan. They spent 9 months negotiating in the Finance Committee and got nothing out of it for their troubles, all the while the people they're negotiating with are raising money by claiming they're helping to defeat the bill.

This article does a good job summing up how this all played out....

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-republican-health-care-blunder

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: ObamaRama 8

when did the federal gov't get that kind of power?

Somewhere between 1776 and 1787

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

WHy use this as an example when reality is, they are going to force you to buy health insurance, when did they get that kind of power?

because I can't think of better examples.

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

2) I'm terribly amused by the stupidity of the anti-health care arguments. As nobody has taken up the question of the last time a GOP Congress enacted a deficit reduction bill, lets move on to other matters. If a bill can cover 30M more people, all the while reducing the debt by trillions, is that not better than the current system, and far better than anything the opposition party has ever producted? Yes, and yes. Lets say the bill, 5 years down the road, has something that needs adjusting. Then go ahead and do it. The heavy lifting is already done.

that's a big if there... given your reasoning skills in the Red Sox thread I'm surprised at how cock sure you are about how fantastic this is all going to be.

If this were all candy canes and happy goodness then it'd be easily explainable and indisputable. In fact, I'm going to say that your candy canes and happy goodness is disputable... tell me why its obvious that its all going to work... ALTERNATIVELY tell me why I should trust those who tell me it will work. Maybe you'll be better at that second part. Tell me what these people know... not that "well, this partisan thing worked in the past"... I've got a rock here that keeps tigers away.

For such an intelligent high level person such as yourself this should be easy. But again, given the Red Sox thread I'm not expecting much.