PDA

View Full Version : Poll of SCOTUS insiders; 35% chance Obamacare overturned



Peter1469
03-28-2012, 04:09 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/218011-poll-supreme-court-insiders-expect-court-to-uphold-healthcare-law

A poll of ex-clerks who worked for the current Justices and lawyers who have tried appeals before SCOTUS were asked what they thought the chances of SCOTUS overturning Obamacare.

35%. A very different story that what is being portrayed by the MSM and even the alternative media.

I can understand that position from insiders; because SCOTUS is so loath to disregard recent cases. And since 1936, after FDR threatened to pack the Court, SCOTUS has discovered vast new Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The first case to say "hold on, let's think this through" was US v. Lopez, where SCOTUS said that the Commerce Clause does not authorize the Congress to regulate gun possession in a school zone.

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.

And that was in 1995. From 1936 to 1995 SCOTUS allowed Congress to expand its powers through the Commerce Clause unchecked. All of that should be undone.

I hope that this decision clarifies and expands upon Lopez. One step at a time.

Conley
03-28-2012, 05:28 PM
Only 35% ?

It seemed like from what I read that the judges were tearing it apart. Perhaps that's just grandstanding for the coverage.

Mainecoons
03-28-2012, 05:35 PM
Only 35% ?

It seemed like from what I read that the judges were tearing it apart. Perhaps that's just grandstanding for the coverage.

I believe that is quite likely.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 06:31 PM
Being a mostly conservative SCOTUS, I would think the percentage would be much higher.

Chris
03-28-2012, 06:41 PM
Mostly conservative SCOTUS? More like split down the middle.


Anyway, I hold out hope because much was done yesterday to establish the uniqueness of the law in encroaching on negative liberties, the notion Congress could regulate inactivity and much was done to show how far-reaching the law could be in terms of regulating all economic aspects of our lives.

I've seen some commentary the court might strike down the individual mandate but uphold some other parts.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 06:43 PM
Technically it is mostly right-wing. Close. But technically right wing.

Stoney
03-28-2012, 07:03 PM
We need a few libertarians on the court.

Chris
03-28-2012, 07:16 PM
Technically it is mostly right-wing. Close. But technically right wing.

Would love to here the explanation for this!

Peter1469
03-28-2012, 07:41 PM
Technically it is mostly right-wing. Close. But technically right wing.

If that is true explain the result in the Citizens United case.

Mainecoons
03-28-2012, 07:42 PM
A real conservative court would roll back all of the expansions of the commerce clause in the last 100 years.

Mister D
03-28-2012, 07:44 PM
Mostly conservative SCOTUS? More like split down the middle.


Anyway, I hold out hope because much was done yesterday to establish the uniqueness of the law in encroaching on negative liberties, the notion Congress could regulate inactivity and much was done to show how far-reaching the law could be in terms of regulating all economic aspects of our lives.

I've seen some commentary the court might strike down the individual mandate but uphold some other parts.

I read the same thing this afternoon. That's the heart of the issue though.

Chris
03-28-2012, 07:47 PM
Yes, it probably is. To that some commentary says in order to save some good constitutional parts of the law, the court may send it back to Congress to redo, thus making a narrow decision and avoiding any impression of judicial activism.

Mister D
03-28-2012, 07:50 PM
Yes, it probably is. To that some commentary says in order to save some good constitutional parts of the law, the court may send it back to Congress to redo, thus making a narrow decision and avoiding any impression of judicial activism.

A narrow decision seems likely to me for the reason stated.

Peter1469
03-28-2012, 07:53 PM
A real conservative court would roll back all of the expansions of the commerce clause in the last 100 years.

Back to 1936 as I said in the OP.

Chris
03-28-2012, 07:58 PM
A Robert's Court won't, imo, make such a broad decision.



Liberal Tobin is now calling it a plane wreck. Liberal LA Times Savage:
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional. (source (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/28/kennedy-would-leaving-parts-of-obamacare-in-place-be-more-extreme-than-entire-repeal/))


BTW, spunkloaf, there's your con v lib divide in the court with Kennedy as a swinger.

Peter1469
03-28-2012, 08:01 PM
Yes, it probably is. To that some commentary says in order to save some good constitutional parts of the law, the court may send it back to Congress to redo, thus making a narrow decision and avoiding any impression of judicial activism.

The problem with that is, what possible redo can be done if the mandate is gone? The law without the mandate would bankrupt the health insurance industry within 2-3 years. Second, severability clauses are not new; if Congress wanted one to save the legislation if part of it was stricken down, it would have added on. SCOTUS must assume that Congress did not want one. It would be very activist for SCOTUS to add one now.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 08:13 PM
Would love to here the explanation for this!

You don't need an explanation, look at which ones were appointed by which presidents. It speaks for itself.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 08:15 PM
A Robert's Court won't, imo, make such a broad decision.



Liberal Tobin is now calling it a plane wreck. Liberal LA Times Savage: (source (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/28/kennedy-would-leaving-parts-of-obamacare-in-place-be-more-extreme-than-entire-repeal/))


BTW, spunkloaf, there's your con v lib divide in the court with Kennedy as a swinger.

Hay thanks for offering an argument instead of waiting for me to do your research for you.

Peter1469
03-28-2012, 08:16 PM
Hay thanks for offering an argument instead of waiting for me to do your research for you.

?

Spunk this is a serious thread. Go back to the other ones.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 08:20 PM
?

Spunk this is a serious thread. Go back to the other ones.

What? Chris challenged my logic when I claimed it was a mostly conservative court, the facts were present and discoverable, and he then ACTUALLY OFFERED A VALID ARGUMENT FOR WHY I MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN in my assumption.

Peter1469
03-28-2012, 08:22 PM
Chris was wrong to call you out here. Go back to the other threads.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 08:26 PM
Chris was wrong to call you out here. Go back to the other threads.

You're not being very nice.

Chris
03-28-2012, 08:47 PM
You don't need an explanation, look at which ones were appointed by which presidents. It speaks for itself.
Read up on the history of the court and how who appointed them has little to do with how they comport themselves once on the court.

A good book is Rosen's recent The Supreme Court.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 09:18 PM
Read up on the history of the court and how who appointed them has little to do with how they comport themselves once on the court.

A good book is Rosen's recent The Supreme Court.

Does it reveal the truth that liberal ideas are the most constitutional and easy for educated judges to find consensus on in the Supreme Court? :grin: Just messin.

Chris
03-28-2012, 11:03 PM
You mean like Ginsberg who trashed the Constitution she's sworn to uphold?

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 11:29 PM
Like how? Is that an opinion?

MMC
03-28-2012, 11:31 PM
You mean like Ginsberg who trashed the Constitution she's sworn to uphold?


While in another country explaining to foreigners about the US Constitution. :angry: Be alright if she was over there on her own dime, own time, talking about baseball, apple pie and chevrolet.

spunkloaf
03-28-2012, 11:52 PM
What did she do?

MMC
03-29-2012, 12:03 AM
What did she do?

Theres a couple of threads we have on it somewheres. I can't remember which room they are in. I think she was in Egypt discussing that New Form of Democracy, Humani-terroism.

spunkloaf
03-29-2012, 12:31 AM
When you find it let me know.

Chris
03-29-2012, 06:18 AM
Google "ginsberg constitution egypt"

spunkloaf
03-29-2012, 10:58 PM
Is that it? You made it sound like she single-handedly rewrote the constitution with passages from the Koran and put Satan's signature on it, and then defecated all over it while burning the American flag and sticking needles in a Nixon voodoo doll.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012..."

Did you hear what that LIBERAL just said?!? It's like she's calling Jesus a bitch!

MMC
03-30-2012, 03:05 AM
The point is she took an oath and is sworn to defend the Constitution. With what she said in Egypt. It was clear she failed in that regard.

Chris
03-30-2012, 12:28 PM
spunkloaf read what I said again instead of strawmanning it into something I didn't.

"Ginsberg ... trashed the Constitution she's sworn to uphold"

ramone
03-30-2012, 01:02 PM
When you find it let me know.

Here ya go, this old senile woman doesn't even know what planet she is on. This is only a small part of the entire interview, it was very revealing to say the lest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MKrsG2ryBo

Dagny
03-30-2012, 02:44 PM
More than likely, they won't rule against the mandate. If they do, I hope it opens the door for the public option....which is what we should've had in the first place.

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 03:33 PM
More than likely, they won't rule against the mandate. If they do, I hope it opens the door for the public option....which is what we should've had in the first place.

How does the Commerce Clause allow for the mandate?

MMC
03-30-2012, 04:07 PM
How does the Commerce Clause allow for the mandate?

It doesn't Pete.....your the Attorney. Can you tell us why it doesn't?

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 05:30 PM
Here ya go, this old senile woman doesn't even know what planet she is on. This is only a small part of the entire interview, it was very revealing to say the lest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MKrsG2ryBo

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2551-Poll-of-SCOTUS-insiders-35-chance-Obamacare-overturned?p=51427&viewfull=1#post51427

ramone
03-30-2012, 05:50 PM
Is that it? You made it sound like she single-handedly rewrote the constitution with passages from the Koran and put Satan's signature on it, and then defecated all over it while burning the American flag and sticking needles in a Nixon voodoo doll.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012..."

Did you hear what that LIBERAL just said?!? It's like she's calling Jesus a bitch!

Who cares what she called Jesus, I could care less and religion has no place in politics anyway. Now back to point of post, It is evident that she could care less about the constitution and therefore would like to change it to some communist ideology. Prove that one wrong.

Chris
03-30-2012, 06:24 PM
"You made it sound like she single-handedly rewrote the constitution with passages from the Koran and put Satan's signature on it...."

Why do you exaggerate what was said into a straw man anyone could knock down? She trashed the Constitution instead of defending it.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 06:51 PM
How does the Commerce Clause allow for the mandate?
We already have insurance mandates. Lots of them.

Chris
03-30-2012, 07:00 PM
Seemed to me to be a specific question. Generalizations don't answer.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 07:10 PM
Seemed to me to be a specific question. Generalizations don't answer.We already have a precedent for the mandates. If you want to delve into caselaw, use the google button. Otherwise, piss off.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Who cares what she called Jesus, I could care less and religion has no place in politics anyway. Now back to point of post, It is evident that she could care less about the constitution and therefore would like to change it to some communist ideology. Prove that one wrong.

EASY. Here I go.


Your Statement: It is evident that she could care less about the constitution and therefore would like to change it to some communist ideology.

My Rebuttal: No it's not.



There. Proven.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 07:15 PM
"You made it sound like she single-handedly rewrote the constitution with passages from the Koran and put Satan's signature on it...."

Why do you exaggerate what was said into a straw man anyone could knock down? She trashed the Constitution instead of defending it.

No, she made some comments which you're purposefully taking out of context to create controversy. Just stop.

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 07:25 PM
It doesn't Pete.....your the Attorney. Can you tell us why it doesn't?


I don't think that it does, even if you accept all of the SCOTUS decisions since SCOTUS started giving all Commerce Clause legislation a pass in 1936. There were some crazy decisions- like stating that a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption is engaged in inter-state commerce; but nothing that goes as far as the mandate goes. If the mandate were upheld there would be nothing that Congress could not do (relating to the Commerce Clause).

[/URL]
[URL]http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html (http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html)

Chris
03-30-2012, 07:33 PM
No, she made some comments which you're purposefully taking out of context to create controversy. Just stop.

She dissed the Constitution plain and simple when she's expected to uphold it. I make no more than that about it, you're the one exaggerating it into a straw man.

Chris
03-30-2012, 07:37 PM
I don't think that it does, even if you accept all of the SCOTUS decisions since SCOTUS started giving all Commerce Clause legislation a pass in 1936. There were some crazy decisions- like stating that a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption is engaged in inter-state commerce; but nothing that goes as far as the mandate goes. If the mandate were upheld there would be nothing that Congress could not do (relating to the Commerce Clause).

[/URL]
[URL]http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html (http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html)

Napolitano in Can the Government Force You to Eat Broccoli? (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/29/can_the_government_force_you_to_eat_broccoli) raises an interesting point:
One of those delegated powers is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The language in the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress "to regulate" commerce among the states. When James Madison wrote that phrase, he and the other Framers were animated by the startling lack of interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation. This was the period after the Revolution and before the Constitution when the merchants and bankers who financed the Revolution also controlled the state legislatures. They were both creditors, because they had lent money to the state governments to finance the war, and debtors, because they now controlled the machinery of state government that owed them money.

What did they do? They were the original corporatists and crony capitalists. They formed cartels to diminish in-state competition, and they imposed tariffs to discourage out-of-state competition. Thus, in order to turn 13 mini-economies into one large economy, and to protect the freedom to trade, Madison used the word "regulate," which to him and his colleagues meant "to keep regular." So, the Constitution delegated to Congress the constitutional power to keep interstate commerce regular by prohibiting state tariffs, and it did so.
I'll leave rest to your reading pleasure or pain.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 07:41 PM
She dissed the Constitution plain and simple when she's expected to uphold it. I make no more than that about it, you're the one exaggerating it into a straw man.

The exaggeration was certainly called for, and I was happy to bring it forth because the accusation is outrageously ridiculous. You're offering an exaggerated opinion about a supreme court judge because you have the right to take her words out of context and relay them in your own perspective. There's nothing more to it.

Mister D
03-30-2012, 07:42 PM
How were her words taken out of context?

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 07:49 PM
How were her words taken out of context?

Whatever makes somebody say that she trashed the constitution and wants to rewrite it to satisfy communism is how. I guess that's hard to answer, you're trying to ask me to explain somebody else's opinion. I'm tired of these kinds on non-factual arguments presented by the right-wing. Can't any of you find something debatable with substance? If not, then don't expect people to agree with you "just because, it's so EVIDENT." :shocked:

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 08:18 PM
Lessons in proper discussion and debate:

exhibit A.

"I'm tired of these kinds of non-factual arguments presented by the right wing."

Notice how I presented this statement as an opinion, not a fact. This is because I cannot PROVE how deplorable I find the action to be, but can merely EXPRESS my opinion.


exhibit B.

"It is evident that she could care less about the constitution and therefore would like to change it to some communist ideology."

Can anybody explain why this is not properly being represented as a personal opinion which cannot possibly be proven?

GRUMPY
03-30-2012, 08:30 PM
I don't think that it does, even if you accept all of the SCOTUS decisions since SCOTUS started giving all Commerce Clause legislation a pass in 1936. There were some crazy decisions- like stating that a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption is engaged in inter-state commerce; but nothing that goes as far as the mandate goes. If the mandate were upheld there would be nothing that Congress could not do (relating to the Commerce Clause).


http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html


well this is it exactly, there is no precedent for this even given the ever expanding commerce clause.....if the govt can compel one to get up off of their couch and purchase a product because someday you are likely to purchase some aspect of that product anyway and so you are therefore acting even though you are not acting....then by god orwell there is no limit to what the federal govt can compel the individual to do and justify thru double speak....

Mister D
03-30-2012, 08:45 PM
Whatever makes somebody say that she trashed the constitution and wants to rewrite it to satisfy communism is how. I guess that's hard to answer, you're trying to ask me to explain somebody else's opinion. I'm tired of these kinds on non-factual arguments presented by the right-wing. Can't any of you find something debatable with substance? If not, then don't expect people to agree with you "just because, it's so EVIDENT." :shocked:

No one said anything about satisfying communism nor does anyone but you know what that even means. You're starting to waste everyone's time with your contrarian but nonsensical comments.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 08:49 PM
well this is it exactly, there is no precedent for this even given the ever expanding commerce clause.....if the govt can compel one to get up off of their couch and purchase a product because someday you are likely to purchase some aspect of that product anyway and so you are therefore acting even though you are not acting....then by god orwell there is no limit to what the federal govt can compel the individual to do and justify thru double speak....

When Raygun forced hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay, it changed everything. If you are against mandates, would you be open to repealing the section of COBRA that guarantees 'free' care?

Dagny
03-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Napolitano in Can the Government Force You to Eat Broccoli? (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/29/can_the_government_force_you_to_eat_broccoli) raises an interesting point:
I'll leave rest to your reading pleasure or pain.
His 'broccoli' comment was moronic.

The question should've been 'can the govt force you to purchase the broccoli you've been getting for free'?

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 08:52 PM
When Raygun forced hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay, it changed everything. If you are against mandates, would you be open to repealing the section of COBRA that guarantees 'free' care?

That action was outside of the federal government's power.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 08:54 PM
That action was outside of the federal government's power.

Yet......

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 08:56 PM
His 'broccoli' comment was moronic.

The question should've been 'can the govt force you to purchase the broccoli you've been getting for free'?


:huh:

Your revised question was worse than the original. What the Justice's question should have been, "since everyone needs food, everyone is in Commerce; can the federal government have everyone pay into a food fund to ensure that nobody goes without food." Of course that begs the question: if the federal government was in charge of the food fund, we could be sure of massive famine.

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 08:56 PM
Yet......

...

Mister D
03-30-2012, 08:57 PM
:grin:

Dagny
03-30-2012, 09:02 PM
...

If you remove the COBRA issue, then you don't need a mandate. Our society is supposed to be better than that, though.

And why was there no Supreme Court case back then?

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 09:06 PM
If you remove the COBRA issue, then you don't need a mandate. Our society is supposed to be better than that, though.

And why was there no Supreme Court case back then?

COBRA is hardly limited to what is in the mandate of Obamacare.

SCOTUS at that time would not likely have seen any legislation from Congress as exceeding the Commerce Clause powers.

SCOTUS began to give Congress a Commerce Clause pass in 1936 and never once struck down a law on Commerce Clause powers from that time until 1995 in US v Lopez.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 09:12 PM
COBRA is hardly limited to what is in the mandate of Obamacare.

SCOTUS at that time would not likely have seen any legislation from Congress as exceeding the Commerce Clause powers.

SCOTUS began to give Congress a Commerce Clause pass in 1936 and never once struck down a law on Commerce Clause powers from that time until 1995 in US v Lopez.

COBRA gives people the ability to expect to be treated for free. As such, they don't have to buy insurance. Remove the clause that gives free care, and people will change their attitudes toward gambling on the purchase of health insurance.

Is that the society you picture in your dreams?

Mister D
03-30-2012, 09:14 PM
Last time I checked COBRA was very expensive and temporary.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 09:26 PM
No one said anything about satisfying communism nor does anyone but you know what that even means. You're starting to waste everyone's time with your contrarian but nonsensical comments.

Actually ramone said it. So I accept your apology in advance. By "contrarian" I think you mean contradictory. Since it's your opinion that my comments are as such, as well as nonsensical, please describe where such instances occur in this thread.

--OR--

You could just admit that people are indeed misrepresenting their opinions as facts on this forum, particularly in this thread.

By the way your defense mechanism needs some serious tuneup.

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 09:28 PM
COBRA gives people the ability to expect to be treated for free. As such, they don't have to buy insurance. Remove the clause that gives free care, and people will change their attitudes toward gambling on the purchase of health insurance.

Is that the society you picture in your dreams?

You have the wrong law sport. COBRA is a bridge between one job and another way of getting health insurance, it lasts 180 days and you pay all of the costs- your old employer is off the hook.

I have posted extensively about the reforms that I advocate for the health care industry. Your concerns are addressed.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 09:32 PM
You have the wrong law sport. COBRA is a bridge between one job and another way of getting health insurance, it lasts 180 days and you pay all of the costs- your old employer is off the hook.

I have posted extensively about the reforms that I advocate for the health care industry. Your concerns are addressed.

EMTALA was part of COBRA

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 09:37 PM
EMTALA was part of COBRA

You could provide a link.

Dagny
03-30-2012, 09:39 PM
You could provide a link.
You're the genius. You just informed me that I didn't know what COBRA was....sport.

Mister D
03-30-2012, 09:41 PM
You could provide a link.

Or maybe he/she can't.

Mister D
03-30-2012, 09:42 PM
Actually ramone said it. So I accept your apology in advance. By "contrarian" I think you mean contradictory. Since it's your opinion that my comments are as such, as well as nonsensical, please describe where such instances occur in this thread.

--OR--

You could just admit that people are indeed misrepresenting their opinions as facts on this forum, particularly in this thread.

By the way your defense mechanism needs some serious tuneup.

Link to Ramone's comment.

--OR--

Not. You're getting boring, Spunk.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 09:56 PM
Link to Ramone's comment.

--OR--

Not. You're getting boring, Spunk.

Quit being a lazy oaf and find it yourself. You're the one who butt into the conversation with your question about how the judges comments were taken out of context. I told you, and I had to explain the difference between facts and opinion to you and the others.

Oh for crap sake, here it is. Just for you. Mr. All-Seeing Swami of Everything. Mr. "Expecting facts from people is boring." http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2551-Poll-of-SCOTUS-insiders-35-chance-Obamacare-overturned?p=51763&viewfull=1#post51763

Mister D
03-30-2012, 10:05 PM
I looked at your link. No one said anything about satisfying communism and no one knows what that even means except you.

You did not explain how her comments were taken out of context. We're waiting.

Mister D
03-30-2012, 10:06 PM
Nah. We're really not. It's getting boring.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 10:15 PM
Nah. We're really not. It's getting boring.

I agree. Boring. I can't have a civil debate with somebody who insists on playing dumb. Perhaps the next discussion you'll be more mentally involved. I find myself hoping for your cognitive participation less and less the more I talk with you, I must say.

Mister D
03-30-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm crushed, Spunk. Call someone a ****, blame the rest of the board, cry some, and go away. Thanks.

Chris
03-30-2012, 10:29 PM
EMTALA was part of COBRA

That's true. "EMTALA was signed into law in 1986, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)."

But you claimed "COBRA gives people the ability to expect to be treated for free."

That's false. "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was created out of concern that patients were being denied emergency medical treatment because of their inability to pay."

"The law — the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) — gives workers who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by the plan under certain circumstances."

Sources: COBRA Laws and EMTALA (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/790053-overview), Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fscobra.html).

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 10:34 PM
I'm crushed, Spunk. Call someone a ****, blame the rest of the board, cry some, and go away. Thanks.
I'll simplify this argument. She never trashed the constitution and she never endorsed communism. Show my why I am wrong in this statement.

Chris
03-30-2012, 10:38 PM
It's been demonstrated by her own words she trashed the Constitution. I don't know about the communism thing.

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 10:40 PM
You're the genius. You just informed me that I didn't know what COBRA was....sport.

And I still think that you are referring different laws.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 11:15 PM
It's been demonstrated by her own words she trashed the Constitution. I don't know about the communism thing.

Thanks for participating in a discussion. :wink:

I would replace "trashed" with "downplayed the worldwide importance of" in your statement. "Trashed" would convey that she displayed a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind she's offering some diplomatic advice to a nation amidst a national revolution and citing examples from various national doctrines around the world for the people to erect a new way of governing themselves. She's correct when she talks about our newer country with an older constitution, and in saying that a constitution means nothing if people don't desire liberty.

Although ours has many patches, bandages and amputations, the same U.S. constitution still works for us, and we're proud of it. It seems she's merely suggesting that it would not be the best idea for Egypt to develop a carbon-copy of our constitution and expect it to serve a modern Egyptian society in the same way it has served us in the past couple centuries. Nothing which she said undermined our constitution, from my observation. If she had pointed to a part of our constitution and said "that is complete garbage" then I would totally agree she would be "trashing" the constitution.


On another note...

I can usually expect the right wing to get particularly touchy when the constitution or, for that matter, any national symbol is brought up. Usually if any such symbol is being discussed with a fellow right-winger, there is nothing threatening about what is being discussed. However when a left-winger starts treading in that domain, the right-winger feel their patriotic territory is being invaded and they can easily construe any harmless remark as a direct attack. I still haven't figured out how much of that threat is genuinely felt by the right, and how much of that threat is just falsely projected as a mind game.

MMC
03-30-2012, 11:15 PM
It's been demonstrated by her own words she trashed the Constitution. I don't know about the communism thing.


You are correct Chris.....even the left such as Howard Dean pointed out that she should have defended the Constitution by using it as the example and not stating that she would not. To help explain to those Egyptian Students and that new form of Democracy.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 11:16 PM
You are correct Chris.....even the left such as Howard Dean pointed out that she should have defended the Constitution by using it as the example and not stating that she would not. To help explain to those Egyptian Students and that new form of Democracy.

That's an opinion, but it doesn't explain how she trashed the constitution.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 11:34 PM
Free thinkers don't merely defend something just because it's there.

ramone
03-30-2012, 11:34 PM
That's an opinion, but it doesn't explain how she trashed the constitution.

Spunk, Spunk, Spunk: "ramone hits himself in the head with a steel pipe", if she does not think that the constitution is viable for a fledgling country, just what does the senile old biddie think it is good for. You heard her in the video I put up, you wanted proof and you have it. Don't try to argue your way out of it, she is a liberal blood sucker just like the rest.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 11:43 PM
Spunk, Spunk, Spunk: "ramone hits himself in the head with a steel pipe", if she does not think that the constitution is viable for a fledgling country, just what does the senile old biddie think it is good for. You heard her in the video I put up, you wanted proof and you have it. Don't try to argue your way out of it, she is a liberal blood sucker just like the rest.

I know the truth hurts, but you don't need to inflict harm upon yourself.

She's a liberal, and that's the only reason you're attacking her. She said nothing harmful, defamatory, or even mildly disrespectful about the constitution. She merely said that she would not look to it as an example for a new constitution for a country in the modern age. Her reasons were clearly stated that because the method under which ours was framed are outdated, there are other examples to consider which are more modern. She specifically cited examples from our constitution as positive, like the protection of free speech. Where in her comments does she hint to communism?

Peter1469
03-30-2012, 11:54 PM
I know the truth hurts, but you don't need to inflict harm upon yourself.

She's a liberal, and that's the only reason you're attacking her. She said nothing harmful, defamatory, or even mildly disrespectful about the constitution. She merely said that she would not look to it as an example for a new constitution for a country in the modern age. Her reasons were clearly stated that because the method under which ours was framed are outdated, there are other examples to consider which are more modern. She specifically cited examples from our constitution as positive, like the protection of free speech. Where in her comments does she hint to communism?

She was very clear. She like Obama faults the Constitution for only stating what the government could do- a very limited list. She, Obama, and the liberal fellow travelers want a list of things that the government must protect- they want a 20,000 page document that regulates every aspect of human life from cradle to grave.

But that was not the basis of the Constitution. The idea behind it was that God granted humans rights. Governments don't give rights. And beware- if the government has the power to give it to you, they have the power to take ti away. And more.

spunkloaf
03-30-2012, 11:58 PM
She was very clear. She like Obama faults the Constitution for only stating what the government could do- a very limited list. She, Obama, and the liberal fellow travelers want a list of things that the government must protect- they want a 20,000 page document that regulates every aspect of human life from cradle to grave.

But that was not the basis of the Constitution. The idea behind it was that God granted humans rights. Governments don't give rights. And beware- if the government has the power to give it to you, they have the power to take ti away. And more.

K. But where does she hint that their government should grant them rights? Furthermore, where does Obama say this?

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 12:04 AM
K. But where does she hint that their government should grant them rights? Furthermore, where does Obama say this?

If you get the longer video of her talk you will see some of the rights she wants added to the list of constitutional rights.

MMC
03-31-2012, 12:05 AM
That's an opinion, but it doesn't explain how she trashed the constitution.

She was speaking on the merits of democracy and stated that she would not use the Constituton as an example Spunk. She was asked a direct question concerning freedoms given in a democracy with regards to the US Constitution. As the Egyptians are working on one of their own. Again listen to what she says. If it isn't a critique upon the our way and what the founders had set. Then it was an outright slap to what she is suppose to be standing for now.

Look up her oath. I don't have to use just Dean. Many on the left felt she should have defended what the American People Stand For. Naturally those on the right wanted her impeached immediately.

spunkloaf
03-31-2012, 12:06 AM
If you get the longer video of her talk you will see some of the rights she wants added to the list of constitutional rights.

Adding more rights. Kinda radical I guess. My question would then be how would that differ or detract from the rights which are already listed?

spunkloaf
03-31-2012, 12:07 AM
She was speaking on the merits of democracy and stated that she would not use the Constituton as an example Spunk. She was asked a direct question concerning freedoms given in a democracy with regards to the US Constitution. As the Egyptians are working on one of their own. Again listen to what she says. If it isn't a critique upon the our way and what the founders had set. Then it was an outright slap to what she is suppose to be standing for now.

Look up her oath. I don't have to use just Dean. Many on the left felt she should have defended what the American People Stand For. Naturally those on the right wanted her impeached immediately.

Where was it being attacked? There's no need to defend something if it is not being attacked. Agreed?

dsolo802
03-31-2012, 12:53 AM
If you get the longer video of her talk you will see some of the rights she wants added to the list of constitutional rights.Hey Peter, whose video are we talking about?

MMC
03-31-2012, 01:20 AM
Hey Peter, whose video are we talking about?

I'm not Peter.....but I can tell you it was Ginsburg.

dsolo802
03-31-2012, 01:30 AM
I'm not Peter.....but I can tell you it was Ginsburg.Thanks for the reply, MMC. Which video?

MMC
03-31-2012, 01:34 AM
Thanks for the reply, MMC. Which video?


Page 4 Post 35.....dsolo. I think Ramone posted one up.

dsolo802
03-31-2012, 01:48 AM
How does the Commerce Clause allow for the mandate?How much impact on Interstate Commerce does the Constitution require before the Congress has a right under the Commerce clause to regulate the cause of it?

Health Care for the uninsured has been estimated to have close to 50 billion dollars worth of impact on interstate commerce, jacking up the cost of premiums for the working families who are insured to the tune of $1,000.00 yearly.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 06:10 AM
That's true. "EMTALA was signed into law in 1986, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)."

But you claimed "COBRA gives people the ability to expect to be treated for free."

That's false. "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was created out of concern that patients were being denied emergency medical treatment because of their inability to pay."

"The law — the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) — gives workers who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by the plan under certain circumstances."

Sources: COBRA Laws and EMTALA (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/790053-overview), Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fscobra.html).

Just as the 'Obamacare' gives us mandates, COBRA gives us EMTALA.

If you read my question, it was asking about the clause in COBRA that forces hospitals to treat for free.

The discussion revolved around the possibilty of killing the mandate, but keeping the rest of the law.


Are you in agreement that striking down EMTALA is necessary, if the mandate gets nixed?

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 09:25 AM
How much impact on Interstate Commerce does the Constitution require before the Congress has a right under the Commerce clause to regulate the cause of it?

Health Care for the uninsured has been estimated to have close to 50 billion dollars worth of impact on interstate commerce, jacking up the cost of premiums for the working families who are insured to the tune of $1,000.00 yearly.

I tend to focus on what the Founder's intended the Constitution to mean and not on what I consider the usurping of State authority that began in earnest in 1936 after FDR threatened SCOTUS with his court packing scheme. I only tell you this because you are new here and I want you to understand my POV. Upfront I will say that even under the case-law developed since 1936- nothing found Constitutional by SCOTUS goes as far as the Mandate in Obamacare.

The Commerce Clause was intended to allow the federal government to facilitate trade between the States and to prevent States from blocking goods from other States for protectionist reasons. It was never intended to give the federal government the power to prefer one commodity over another or to ban a commodity. (Yes that is a reference to our federal drug laws).

We all recall that SCOTUS habitually struck down New Deal legislation prior to 1937. Why? Because there was no tradition in the US of the federal government assuming so much power under any provision of the Constitution, to include the Commerce Clause. FDR's court packing scheme was an overt threat to the independence of the Court. I am not sure if there are any scholarly works describing the Justices' reaction to the threat at the end of 1936, but it is undeniable that SCOTUS reversed course on the Commerce Clause in 1937 and began to rule that any legislation based upon the Commerce Clause was automatically constitutional without any sort of tiered test like we see in other parts of the Constitution.

From 1937 SCOTUS never once questioned Congresses power under the Commerce Clause until 1995 in Lopez v. US. That case concerned a law that made it illegal to carry a gun in a school zone. The Court for the first time since 1936 said, "Wait, the Commerce Clause has limits. Whatever they are, to say that guns in school zones implicates interstate commerce is beyond those limits." Finally- SCOTUS recognizes that Congress does not have totalitarian power via the Commerce Clause.

I sincerely hope that SCOTUS further discusses those limits when they decide the Obamacare case. And I give them permission to cite to me for the historical background of the Commerce Clause.vv:smiley:


Health Care for the uninsured has been estimated to have close to 50 billion dollars worth of impact on interstate commerce, jacking up the cost of premiums for the working families who are insured to the tune of $1,000.00 yearly.

This is a statement of fact. It is not, however, a Constitutional issue. Back up and ask, where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to address the issue? It does not. However, if we rather that it did, the Founders provided a remedy. And that remedy is not to ignore the Constitution (as we so often have done since 1936); the Constitution provides for two ways to change it: the amendment process, or the constitutional convention process.

The Constitution gives us all of the tools necessary to solve these modern problems. I say we use them as opposed to ignoring the greatest document created in history to govern the affairs of man. That would be true Hope and Change.

dsolo802
03-31-2012, 12:27 PM
Peter, thanks for taking the time to assemble such a thoughtful and detailed response. I really appreciate it.


I tend to focus on what the Founder's intended the Constitution to mean and not on what I consider the usurping of State authority that began in earnest in 1936 after FDR threatened SCOTUS with his court packing scheme. I only tell you this because you are new here and I want you to understand my POV. Upfront I will say that even under the case-law developed since 1936- nothing found Constitutional by SCOTUS goes as far as the Mandate in Obamacare.

The Commerce Clause was intended to allow the federal government to facilitate trade between the States and to prevent States from blocking goods from other States for protectionist reasons. It was never intended to give the federal government the power to prefer one commodity over another or to ban a commodity. (Yes that is a reference to our federal drug laws). Case law aside for the moment, as a lawyer I know the first rule of construction when it comes to our laws is the language of the law itself, read together with related clauses, neither adding to what is there, nor effectively redacting anything either. When I read the Commerce Clause, I see language plainly giving to Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce for the common good. What is there in the Federalist papers or other source that compels you to conclude, against the plain language of the clause itself, that it applies only "to allow the federal government to facilitate trade between the States and to prevent States from blocking goods from other States for protectionist reasons."

I like to think I'm pretty good on the history side too. When it comes to original intent, the language is considered the source of first resort. If you would share the other sources you draw from to come to your conclusion, I'm sure that would help me understand your point of view.


We all recall that SCOTUS habitually struck down New Deal legislation prior to 1937. Why? Because there was no tradition in the US of the federal government assuming so much power under any provision of the Constitution, to include the Commerce Clause. FDR's court packing scheme was an overt threat to the independence of the Court.Agreed. The political "influence" simply cannot be denied.


I am not sure if there are any scholarly works describing the Justices' reaction to the threat at the end of 1936, but it is undeniable that SCOTUS reversed course on the Commerce Clause in 1937 and began to rule that any legislation based upon the Commerce Clause was automatically constitutional without any sort of tiered test like we see in other parts of the Constitution. I would say to you, the ideological corruption of the process by which Justices are nominated and approved continues that tradition, one in which both parties have sadly played a part.

And still, when we are talking about the Commerce Clause we are talking about a specifically enumerated power, not a penumbra or imagined concept springing from the notion of ordered liberty. 50 billion dollars of impact is a lot of impact on actual interstate commerce. The connection between the means chosen to regulate the impact and the cause of the impact is direct and the impact any but fanciful.


From 1937 SCOTUS never once questioned Congresses power under the Commerce Clause until 1995 in Lopez v. US. That case concerned a law that made it illegal to carry a gun in a school zone. The Court for the first time since 1936 said, "Wait, the Commerce Clause has limits. Whatever they are, to say that guns in school zones implicates interstate commerce is beyond those limits." Finally- SCOTUS recognizes that Congress does not have totalitarian power via the Commerce Clause. I truly understand the critique of Commerce Clause cases insofar as it applies to the "any sane imagined impact will do." There is ample room for umbrage and outrage there. But here, if we are talking Health Care, we are talking about impact on working people who pay for their insurance, that is anything but imagined and insubstantial. I don't understand the argument that says, this is the beginning of the slippery slope that leads to compulsory broccoli consumption. The cost to people like you and me of providing emergency care to people who don't have insurance is outrageously high. How can anyone think there is a comparable argument about broccoli?


I sincerely hope that SCOTUS further discusses those limits when they decide the Obamacare case. And I give them permission to cite to me for the historical background of the Commerce Clause.vv:smiley: I hope so too. I think we may witness something of a Solomon-type maneuver along those lines: A dialing back of the "any sane impact will do" standard, to eliminate the slippery slope argument about doing what is necessary and proper to regulate and directly mitigate an undeniably substantial impact on Interstate Commerce.


This is a statement of fact. It is not, however, a Constitutional issue. Back up and ask, where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to address the issue?I will admit to being partial to the Commerce Clause giving the federal government the power to address the issue. I find the argument especially compelling because when the heated rhetoric is stripped away, both of our whoring parties actually do acknowledge the national dimensions of our health care tragedy. Some problems intrinsically cannot be contained within the imaginary lines we draw on our map. The impact our current health care system is having, it seems to me, is one such problem.


It does not. However, if we rather that it did, the Founders provided a remedy. And that remedy is not to ignore the Constitution (as we so often have done since 1936); the Constitution provides for two ways to change it: the amendment process, or the constitutional convention process. The Constitution is a cohesive and high-level collection of powers and duties and checks and balances. It was certainly not meant to be a traffic code. For example, it says the government is to provide "due process", but doesn't list within its four corners, nor will we find in any historical source, an encyclopedic look up of what is due in every conceivable situation. Implicitly, Congress and ultimately the Judiciary, must look to the ideals and principles stated in the Constitution and do what must be done to achieve stated purposes, a conclusion finding explicit support in the necessary and proper clause.


The Constitution gives us all of the tools necessary to solve these modern problems. I say we use them as opposed to ignoring the greatest document created in history to govern the affairs of man. That would be true Hope and Change.We agree about our Constitution. We also agree that the "any sane connection standard" is begging to be adjusted. So far, and pending further discussion, I don't see that "the mandate" is an example of Congress using that standard to distort the appropriate relationship between Federal and State Governments.

BTW: I don't think and see no evidence that Justice Ginsberg is senile, just enfeebled. AND I was more than disappointed that she gave our Constitution such short shrift in the video that Ramone posted.

Chris
03-31-2012, 01:41 PM
Just as the 'Obamacare' gives us mandates, COBRA gives us EMTALA.

If you read my question, it was asking about the clause in COBRA that forces hospitals to treat for free.

The discussion revolved around the possibilty of killing the mandate, but keeping the rest of the law.


Are you in agreement that striking down EMTALA is necessary, if the mandate gets nixed?

"COBRA that forces hospitals to treat for free."

COBRA does not do that, EMTALA does.

"Are you in agreement that striking down EMTALA is necessary, if the mandate gets nixed?"

The mandate is part of the Affordable Care Act. EMTALA has stood without that since 2003.

Chris
03-31-2012, 01:43 PM
That's an opinion, but it doesn't explain how she trashed the constitution.

She did it with her words. Watch the video.

Chris
03-31-2012, 01:44 PM
Adding more rights. Kinda radical I guess. My question would then be how would that differ or detract from the rights which are already listed?

Simple, governments nor constitutions grant rights. Rights precede both.

Chris
03-31-2012, 01:46 PM
How much impact on Interstate Commerce does the Constitution require before the Congress has a right under the Commerce clause to regulate the cause of it?

Health Care for the uninsured has been estimated to have close to 50 billion dollars worth of impact on interstate commerce, jacking up the cost of premiums for the working families who are insured to the tune of $1,000.00 yearly.

The uninsured are not part of the market. This was argued out day two in court.

Chris
03-31-2012, 01:53 PM
"Case law aside for the moment, as a lawyer I know the first rule of construction when it comes to our laws is the language of the law itself, read together with related clauses, neither adding to what is there, nor effectively redacting anything either. When I read the Commerce Clause, I see language plainly giving to Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce for the common good. What is there in the Federalist papers or other source that compels you to conclude, against the plain language of the clause itself, that it applies only "to allow the federal government to facilitate trade between the States and to prevent States from blocking goods from other States for protectionist reasons.""

I think you put the cart before the horse. You give what you consider today a plain reading and then ask for evidence against your reading. A strict constructionist would do the opposite, look for what those who voted on the clause meant and draw plain language conclusions accordingly. Otherwise you risk anachronism.

I posted earlier what Madison meant, I'll repost:

Napolitano in Can the Government Force You to Eat Broccoli? (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/29/can_the_government_force_you_to_eat_broccoli) raises an interesting point:
One of those delegated powers is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The language in the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress "to regulate" commerce among the states. When James Madison wrote that phrase, he and the other Framers were animated by the startling lack of interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation. This was the period after the Revolution and before the Constitution when the merchants and bankers who financed the Revolution also controlled the state legislatures. They were both creditors, because they had lent money to the state governments to finance the war, and debtors, because they now controlled the machinery of state government that owed them money.

What did they do? They were the original corporatists and crony capitalists. They formed cartels to diminish in-state competition, and they imposed tariffs to discourage out-of-state competition. Thus, in order to turn 13 mini-economies into one large economy, and to protect the freedom to trade, Madison used the word "regulate," which to him and his colleagues meant "to keep regular." So, the Constitution delegated to Congress the constitutional power to keep interstate commerce regular by prohibiting state tariffs, and it did so.

Chris
03-31-2012, 02:12 PM
Here are Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: Thursday, August 16 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0816.html). Discussion of the commerce clause focuses on duties and imposts and taxes on export. The intent to empower the federal government to regulate the states use of these measures seems to be the clear intent. I see nothing at all there about regulating commerce itself, nor of regulating the people in their participation through contract, or not, in commerce.

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 03:25 PM
Peter, thanks for taking the time to assemble such a thoughtful and detailed response. I really appreciate it.

Case law aside for the moment, as a lawyer I know the first rule of construction when it comes to our laws is the language of the law itself, read together with related clauses, neither adding to what is there, nor effectively redacting anything either. When I read the Commerce Clause, I see language plainly giving to Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce for the common good. What is there in the Federalist papers or other source that compels you to conclude, against the plain language of the clause itself, that it applies only "to allow the federal government to facilitate trade between the States and to prevent States from blocking goods from other States for protectionist reasons."

I like to think I'm pretty good on the history side too. When it comes to original intent, the language is considered the source of first resort. If you would share the other sources you draw from to come to your conclusion, I'm sure that would help me understand your point of view.

Agreed. The political "influence" simply cannot be denied.

I would say to you, the ideological corruption of the process by which Justices are nominated and approved continues that tradition, one in which both parties have sadly played a part.

And still, when we are talking about the Commerce Clause we are talking about a specifically enumerated power, not a penumbra or imagined concept springing from the notion of ordered liberty. 50 billion dollars of impact is a lot of impact on actual interstate commerce. The connection between the means chosen to regulate the impact and the cause of the impact is direct and the impact any but fanciful.

I truly understand the critique of Commerce Clause cases insofar as it applies to the "any sane imagined impact will do." There is ample room for umbrage and outrage there. But here, if we are talking Health Care, we are talking about impact on working people who pay for their insurance, that is anything but imagined and insubstantial. I don't understand the argument that says, this is the beginning of the slippery slope that leads to compulsory broccoli consumption. The cost to people like you and me of providing emergency care to people who don't have insurance is outrageously high. How can anyone think there is a comparable argument about broccoli?

I hope so too. I think we may witness something of a Solomon-type maneuver along those lines: A dialing back of the "any sane impact will do" standard, to eliminate the slippery slope argument about doing what is necessary and proper to regulate and directly mitigate an undeniably substantial impact on Interstate Commerce.

I will admit to being partial to the Commerce Clause giving the federal government the power to address the issue. I find the argument especially compelling because when the heated rhetoric is stripped away, both of our whoring parties actually do acknowledge the national dimensions of our health care tragedy. Some problems intrinsically cannot be contained within the imaginary lines we draw on our map. The impact our current health care system is having, it seems to me, is one such problem.

The Constitution is a cohesive and high-level collection of powers and duties and checks and balances. It was certainly not meant to be a traffic code. For example, it says the government is to provide "due process", but doesn't list within its four corners, nor will we find in any historical source, an encyclopedic look up of what is due in every conceivable situation. Implicitly, Congress and ultimately the Judiciary, must look to the ideals and principles stated in the Constitution and do what must be done to achieve stated purposes, a conclusion finding explicit support in the necessary and proper clause.

We agree about our Constitution. We also agree that the "any sane connection standard" is begging to be adjusted. So far, and pending further discussion, I don't see that "the mandate" is an example of Congress using that standard to distort the appropriate relationship between Federal and State Governments.

BTW: I don't think and see no evidence that Justice Ginsberg is senile, just enfeebled. AND I was more than disappointed that she gave our Constitution such short shrift in the video that Ramone posted.



Thank you for your thoughtful response. I respect it and understand it.

First I would say that the Commerce Clause is just an enumerated power; it is not separate under its own Article. I would refer readers back to my previous argument about the intent of the clause. It was a lot less potent that people imagine today.

I agree that both political parties have contributed to the corruption of the Court (through a political nomination process).

I do have to say that I think the Founder's would be shocked at your take on the Commerce Clause, but you already know that is my position on the matter.

I don't expect that SCOTUS will make a radical change to Commerce Clause case law with the Obamacare decision. I think they may tighten up the law just a bit more than was done in Lopez. They will not go as far as I would wish, that is certain.

Finally, the mandate does radically change the relationship between the people and the federal government. Were before has the federal government compelled by threat of penalty a citizen to enter into a contract with a private corporation?

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 03:28 PM
Yes, I forgot to address the question of other sources for research into the Constitution. Chris hit on the Notes of the various members of the Continental Congress. You can also look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. If you have access to News Papers of record of the day, those would have interesting information as well.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:29 PM
"COBRA that forces hospitals to treat for free."

COBRA does not do that, EMTALA does.

"Are you in agreement that striking down EMTALA is necessary, if the mandate gets nixed?"

The mandate is part of the Affordable Care Act. EMTALA has stood without that since 2003.
EMTALA/COBRA mandates that hospitals give free care.

Why wasn't this taken up by the Supreme Court? EMTALA is a mandate

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:33 PM
Napolitano in Can the Government Force You to Eat Broccoli? (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/29/can_the_government_force_you_to_eat_broccoli) raises an interesting point:

I already told you that it's a moronic point. If you eat broccoli, the govt. can mandate that you pay for it.

Chris
03-31-2012, 03:39 PM
I already told you that it's a moronic point. If you eat broccoli, the govt. can mandate that you pay for it.

Read the article, please.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:41 PM
Read the article, please.

If you have an article with a title that screams "MORON", I won't bother. I read it the first time it was posted.

dadakarma
03-31-2012, 03:43 PM
If you have an article with a title that screams "MORON", I won't bother. I read it the first time it was posted.

Why won't he just answer your question about EMTALA, I wonder?

Chris
03-31-2012, 03:44 PM
If you have an article with a title that screams "MORON", I won't bother. I read it the first time it was posted.

That's a moronic response. It's obvious you didn't even read the title of the piece.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:47 PM
Why won't he just answer your question about EMTALA, I wonder?

Because it directly refutes all the Constitution junky rhetoric. We have a precedent for mandates. Funny how Raygun didn't get such scrutiny.

Libertarians, and these Teabaggers....they're fun to watch, but it gets boring after a while.

dadakarma
03-31-2012, 03:47 PM
Because it directly refutes all the Constitution junky rhetoric. We have a precedent for mandates. Funny how Raygun didn't get such scrutiny.

Libertarians, and these Teabaggers....they're fun to watch, but it gets boring after a while.

It's the same show, over and over.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:48 PM
That's a moronic response. It's obvious you didn't even read the title of the piece.
Well, yes. The framers of the Constitution were mindful of how this would affect health insurance.

Chris
03-31-2012, 03:49 PM
Here are Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: Thursday, August 16 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0816.html). Discussion of the commerce clause focuses on duties and imposts and taxes on export. The intent to empower the federal government to regulate the states use of these measures seems to be the clear intent. I see nothing at all there about regulating commerce itself, nor of regulating the people in their participation through contract, or not, in commerce.

Sorry, need to amend that, further reading of Madison's notes show it was also debated Friday, August 24 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0824.html), Tuesday, August 28 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0828.html), Wednesday, August 29 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0829.html), and Saturday, September 15 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0915.html).

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:49 PM
It's the same show, over and over.

Even my cats get bored with the mouse, once they've put it out of its misery.

Chris
03-31-2012, 03:51 PM
Well, yes. The framers of the Constitution were mindful of how this would affect health insurance.

Read Madison's notes, they were concerned only with regulating the states' duties, imposts and taxes of commerce, not the people's right to voluntary contract.

dadakarma
03-31-2012, 03:52 PM
Even my cats get bored with the mouse, once they've put it out of its misery.

This won't be decided until June, correct?

MMC
03-31-2012, 03:53 PM
It's the same show, over and over.


Yes, but I thought you was running away from all of that constantly? Oh Well! Looks like were no different. Guess we'll be seeing ya. Was alright to meet ya and all your cats. Oh and crew too.

Chris
03-31-2012, 03:54 PM
Why won't he just answer your question about EMTALA, I wonder?

See post #103. It answers the question. Dagny even quoted and responded to it. How'd you miss it.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 03:56 PM
Read Madison's notes, they were concerned only with regulating the states' duties, imposts and taxes of commerce, not the people's right to voluntary contract.
How can you even mention the Framers, when discussing issues that weren't fathomable then?

I read the notes. Given that you refuse to address the total lack of 'voluntary' contract w/respect to EMTALA, you haven't succeeded in intelligently delving into an intricate issue.

dadakarma
03-31-2012, 04:01 PM
See post #103. It answers the question. Dagny even quoted and responded to it. How'd you miss it.


I missed nothing. You didn't answer the question.

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 04:02 PM
EMTALA/COBRA mandates that hospitals give free care.

Why wasn't this taken up by the Supreme Court? EMTALA is a mandate

COBRA requires a hefty co-pay.

There is a law that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone who shows up. Why do you think it is unconstitutional. Try to be specific and not just say because the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. That would not be acceptable.

Chris
03-31-2012, 04:07 PM
And EMTALA is a mandated string attached to accepting Medicare/Medicaid.

Dagny
03-31-2012, 04:08 PM
COBRA requires a hefty co-pay.

There is a law that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone who shows up. Why do you think it is unconstitutional. Try to be specific and not just say because the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. That would not be acceptable.

It isn't unconstitutional. Hospitals that don't accept federal money, don't have to abide. The point is, the law has created a scenario where a large segment of society gets free care, at the expense of the rest of us.

And that goes to my point about mandates....there is nobody in this country, that won't need care sooner or later. If we're going to force insurance companies to accept those w/pre existing conditions, then we need to have our citizens paying into a pool.

To be clear...I hate the law. A public option was the only plan that would've worked, but the Pharma/Ins. lobby wouldn't allow it.

dadakarma
03-31-2012, 04:13 PM
It isn't unconstitutional. Hospitals that don't accept federal money, don't have to abide. The point is, the law has created a scenario where a large segment of society gets free care, at the expense of the rest of us.

And that goes to my point about mandates....there is nobody in this country, that won't need care sooner or later. If we're going to force insurance companies to accept those w/pre existing conditions, then we need to have our citizens paying into a pool.

To be clear...I hate the law. A public option was the only plan that would've worked, but the Pharma/Ins. lobby wouldn't allow it.

They'd much prefer this 30-million-member paid-for windfall they wrote the legislation for, instead.

Chris
03-31-2012, 04:22 PM
They'd much prefer this 30-million-member paid-for windfall they wrote the legislation for, instead.

Good ol' crony capitalism.

ramone
03-31-2012, 06:00 PM
I know the truth hurts, but you don't need to inflict harm upon yourself.

She's a liberal, and that's the only reason you're attacking her. She said nothing harmful, defamatory, or even mildly disrespectful about the constitution. She merely said that she would not look to it as an example for a new constitution for a country in the modern age. Her reasons were clearly stated that because the method under which ours was framed are outdated, there are other examples to consider which are more modern. She specifically cited examples from our constitution as positive, like the protection of free speech. Where in her comments does she hint to communism?

You think spunk, care to expand on that thought? Ginsberg is a senile old biddie and you know it, this woman is less likely to present a reasonable response than my Grandmother, and she doesn't have a clue what planet she is on. Get real dude, we are not retarded.

Chris
03-31-2012, 08:15 PM
Ginsberg is actually pretty sharp. Much as I disagree with her politics, I do respect her.

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 08:31 PM
It isn't unconstitutional. Hospitals that don't accept federal money, don't have to abide. The point is, the law has created a scenario where a large segment of society gets free care, at the expense of the rest of us.

And that goes to my point about mandates....there is nobody in this country, that won't need care sooner or later. If we're going to force insurance companies to accept those w/pre existing conditions, then we need to have our citizens paying into a pool.

To be clear...I hate the law. A public option was the only plan that would've worked, but the Pharma/Ins. lobby wouldn't allow it.

If it is not unconstitutional then you can point me to the part of the Constitutional that grants such power to the federal government. This should be easy to clear up. Right?

wingrider
03-31-2012, 09:31 PM
If it is not unconstitutional then you can point me to the part of the Constitutional that grants such power to the federal government. This should be easy to clear up. Right? oh man now you know they are gonna come back at you with the commerce clause and the promote the general welfare nonsense,

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 09:41 PM
Sure. But they don't understand the enumerated powers. The States would never have turned over their sovereignty to a federal government. And they did no such thing. They gave up few and limited powers to the federal government and retained all else.

wingrider
03-31-2012, 09:43 PM
Sure. But they don't understand the enumerated powers. The States would never have turned over their sovereignty to a federal government. And they did no such thing. They gave up few and limited powers to the federal government and retained all else.
well yes we know this.. but it seems some have forgotten about it. matter of fact didn't we fight a 5 year war about this very thing?? oh yes........... the civil war..

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 09:50 PM
It isn't unconstitutional. Hospitals that don't accept federal money, don't have to abide. The point is, the law has created a scenario where a large segment of society gets free care, at the expense of the rest of us.

And that goes to my point about mandates....there is nobody in this country, that won't need care sooner or later. If we're going to force insurance companies to accept those w/pre existing conditions, then we need to have our citizens paying into a pool.

To be clear...I hate the law. A public option was the only plan that would've worked, but the Pharma/Ins. lobby wouldn't allow it.

You are telling me what you what the Constitution to mean. That is nice. But it is incorrect.

What sort of Amendment to the Constitution would you propose to make your dream a reality?

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 09:51 PM
well yes we know this.. but it seems some have forgotten about it. matter of fact didn't we fight a 5 year war about this very thing?? oh yes........... the civil war..


Are you claiming that the end of the Civil war ending the federal republic? Federalism died?

wingrider
03-31-2012, 10:08 PM
Are you claiming that the end of the Civil war ending the federal republic? Federalism died? nope federalism won... the states lost.. until then states could secede from the union.. since then nope nada nyet, never again,, states became puppets to the federal government,,

Chris
03-31-2012, 11:23 PM
Federalism means power resides in the states other than enumerated powers the states and the people grant the federal government. It's still there, you see it in the 28 (?) states suing the federal government over ObamaRomneyCare.

Chris
03-31-2012, 11:26 PM
You are telling me what you what the Constitution to mean. That is nice. But it is incorrect.

What sort of Amendment to the Constitution would you propose to make your dream a reality?

Careful you might get FDR's Bill of Economic Rights, ir the UN's.

Peter1469
03-31-2012, 11:39 PM
nope federalism won... the states lost.. until then states could secede from the union.. since then nope nada nyet, never again,, states became puppets to the federal government,,

I think that you got federalism backwards... oops.

Dagny
04-01-2012, 06:02 AM
Sure. But they don't understand the enumerated powers. The States would never have turned over their sovereignty to a federal government. And they did no such thing. They gave up few and limited powers to the federal government and retained all else.

So your claim is that the Founders believed that a for profit healthcare system was beneficial to all?

The Founders' goal was to keep white, male, wealthy individuals in power. Looks like they did a great job.

How you can try and apply current day issues, to our nation's founding, is laughable.

Why not join the rest of us in reality?

Dagny
04-01-2012, 07:29 AM
If outlay of federal dollars is the qualifier that makes EMTALA constitutional:

Can't it be argued that the current system, that costs the feds. billions of dollars to treat uninsureds, qualifies for mandating health insurance?

So the ultimate question is...do we want to remove all federal support from the current system, and allow people who don't buy insurance to either perish, or live with broken bones? Or spread disease?

Over time, those who survive will get with the program, and purchase the necessary insurance.

Of course, buying into Medicare would be the most cost effective, but the Ins/Pharma lobbies would never allow that.

MMC
04-01-2012, 09:07 AM
Careful you might get FDR's Bill of Economic Rights, ir the UN's.


Chris.....you know half of them don't even know anything about what their New Deal was about. :wink:

ramone
04-01-2012, 09:27 AM
Full steam ahead, I don't have a clue but I think it will work. :)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4C_tSMqS810/SwyZvzflZGI/AAAAAAAAE_A/87U_Tpxv9KA/s400/horse_blinders_blinkers_winkers_atheist_atheism_sc ience.JPG

MMC
04-01-2012, 09:42 AM
Full steam ahead, I don't have a clue but I think it will work. :)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4C_tSMqS810/SwyZvzflZGI/AAAAAAAAE_A/87U_Tpxv9KA/s400/horse_blinders_blinkers_winkers_atheist_atheism_sc ience.JPG

No that won't work as someone would have to clean up those piles of horse puckey, and you know how libs can't stand to work now as is.....

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4804814781874736&id=ea8d2ceb0e865e4fbbed074614db7091&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ibike.org%2feconomics%2fkolka ta%20hand%20rickshaw.bmp

Soon to be our Full Steam ahead.....and coming to a major city near you. :wink:

ramone
04-01-2012, 09:51 AM
LOL, I was talking about the blinders on the horse and how the libs only look straight ahead. Never bothering to check things out, party line voting. :) Of course the rickshaw will work too but you would have to blindfold the guy pulling it. Maybe a seeing eye dog would help out. Think we could get Obammy a seeing eye libertarian to show him the way?

Chris might volunteer for the job, wouldn't that be a great working relationship?

MMC
04-01-2012, 10:03 AM
LOL, I was talking about the blinders on the horse and how the libs only look straight ahead. Never bothering to check things out, party line voting. :) Of course the rickshaw will work too but you would have to blindfold the guy pulling it. Maybe a seeing eye dog would help out. Think we could get Obammy a seeing eye libertarian to show him the way?

Chris might volunteer for the job, wouldn't that be a great working relationship?

Yeah not to mention.....I think Chris will be the one Holding that CheckBook. :wink: :grin:

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 11:29 AM
The uninsured are not part of the market. This was argued out day two in court.Even Scalia, not fan of expansive interpretation of enumerated powers, concedes that the acts of individual having a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached through a combination of Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

Chris
04-01-2012, 11:34 AM
So your claim is that the Founders believed that a for profit healthcare system was beneficial to all?

The Founders' goal was to keep white, male, wealthy individuals in power. Looks like they did a great job.

How you can try and apply current day issues, to our nation's founding, is laughable.

Why not join the rest of us in reality?

Citations of founders, please, to back up anything you posted....

Chris
04-01-2012, 11:36 AM
Yeah not to mention.....I think Chris will be the one Holding that CheckBook. :wink: :grin:

I could use the money for my new truck!!

But I don't think Barack and I would see eye to eye on much.

Chris
04-01-2012, 11:49 AM
Even Scalia, not fan of expansive interpretation of enumerated powers, concedes that the acts of individual having a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached through a combination of Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

Quite the opposite.

Transcript, day 2 (http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/The_Courts/11-398-Tuesday_IndMandate.pdf)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- that's -* it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?

GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that -- this is a regulation -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, that wasn't my point. That is not the only constitutional principle that exists.

GENERAL VERRILLI: But it -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that's a principle?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Of course we do, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. That's what we are talking about here.

wingrider
04-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Quite the opposite.

Transcript, day 2 (http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/The_Courts/11-398-Tuesday_IndMandate.pdf) thanks Chris,, great post.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 01:00 PM
Yes, I forgot to address the question of other sources for research into the Constitution. Chris hit on the Notes of the various members of the Continental Congress. You can also look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. If you have access to News Papers of record of the day, those would have interesting information as well.I was hoping you would gather in one place the sources you think support your views and conclusions. But that can come in response to the sources I find helpful.

Rather than go back to each of the replies to my post, I will consolidate here.

My current understanding of the Commerce Clause is based on the following. I say "current" because I am allowing for the probability that I have not considered everything that should be considered. As unfashionable as it is to self apply this realistically modest approach in our partisan times, I encourage it for all because I know it will lead to much better discussions.

1. My first post on this, addresses what I conceive to be the most important argument in favor of the scope I would give to the Commerce Clause. As I said there, the plain language of any clause in the Constitution is always considered first as the best source for getting to Constitutional aims and intent. Based on this, the operating assumption here is if there had been an intent to limit the scope of a grant of Commerce Clause power, the Founders would have included limiting language and not the the broad language we find in Article 1, Section 8.

2. In our jurisprudence we never presume that the law maker has acted to produce ineffective law. Consequently, with any of the grants of power, including the Commerce Clause, we infer powers that would be necessary to make the grant effective. As 50 billion dollars of burden annually placed by the uninsured on the heads of the insured well demonstrates, the Federal Government cannot regulate interstate commerce in health insurance fully and effectively, without also regulating the substantial impact uninsured in aggregate are heaping upon it.

3. The Necessary and Proper Clause explicitly states what is plainly implied by the words of the Commerce Clause itself. Even Scalia, no fan of expansive reading of enumerated powers, agrees that under the Necessary and Proper Clause private activities which in aggregate have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can be addressed by Congressional enactment. Gonzales v. Raich

4. Directly to your point, Peter, the language of Federalist Paper 42 by Madison most often cited as demonstrating the limited original aim of the Commerce Clause, on its face supports the diametrically opposed conclusion, that the reasons and purposes for the clause are NOT LIMITED to those that Madison Discussed in Federalist Paper 42:

"To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual."


The above quote demonstrates three things:

a. that many arguments had previously been brought to bear in support of the Commerce Clause, and not just those that Madison "adds",

b. that Madison approved of those earlier proofs and remarks;

c. that Madison, and the rest of the founders, did not want their enumerated grants of power to the Federal government to be "incomplete and ineffectual."

The first of these two conclusions is further supported by additional language found in 42 itself:


"A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States,, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter." [Emphasis added].


I don't want to belabor the point, but had Madison wished to limit the circumstances under which the power granted could properly be applied, instead of talking about "A" very material object of this power, he would have spoken of "THE" material object, or, better, THE EXCLUSIVE object.

5. To me, any lingering doubt about Madison's views on giving proper scope to Article I, Section 8 grants of power are laid to rest in Federalist Paper 44. Writing about the Necessary and Proper Clause, Madison thoroughly skewers the idea that enumerated powers should be narrowly construed when to do so would render them ineffectual, and moreover, explicitly rejects the notion that the powers should be applied only to those causes which specifically necessitated the grant when the Nation was founded.

Consider his language:

The sixth and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest. [Italics in original]

"Of these the first is, the “power 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. ‘’Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter." [Emphasis added]
.
With this, it can be seen, that as far as Madison was concerned, the Necessary and Proper Clause is there to make it clear the Constitution was not to be interpreted in such a way as to quickly render it a "dead letter." As I will attempt to show in a moment, Madison is thus not only the wrong Founder to cite for a narrow reading of enumerated grants of power, he is certainly not the go-to-guy when the aim is to undermine the proposition that our Charter Document was meant to be a "living document."

"Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same." [Emphasis added]


Here we see reflected something to which I alluded in my opening post: The folks who wrote the Constitution knew there were not drafting a traffic code and did not attempt to enumerate every scenario to which it could possibly apply. You can also see, that as far was Madison is concerned, the Constitution was written in such a way that object of the general powers would be interpreted to apply "to all the possible changes which futurity may produce."

In sum, - PRESENTLY -I see the plain language of the Commerce Clause enumerating a power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, including implicitly and by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the power necessary to make that grant effectual. PRESENTLY - I don't see anything in the Federalist Papers relating to either Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to the contrary. PRESENTLY - I see private activity in aggregate placing a huge burden on Interstate Commerce which Congress has a right to regulate. Addressing only the question whether Congress had the power to address the source of this burden, I can only conclude the answer is YES.

I realize there is an additional question, whether the means chosen to address that burden is "lawful", but I feel like question number 1 is more than enough to address at this time.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 01:09 PM
Quite the opposite.

Transcript, day 2 (http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/The_Courts/11-398-Tuesday_IndMandate.pdf)That is not true. I said private activities having in aggregate a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached by Congress, which is exactly what Scalia said in Gonzalez v. Roach.

That said, the transcript shows that he would not apply the Necessary and Proper to permit the exercise of Commerce Clause power where to do so would upset State Sovereignty. Scalia did not walk back his earlier statement, he just gave an indication of where he'd draw the line.

I just posted a long reply to Peter and all and will wait till folks have a chance to look at that before weighing in further on this point. See, in particular, the very last paragraphs of that long response.

MMC
04-01-2012, 01:13 PM
Hey DS, did you ever get back with that Constituional Monarchy. As I thought I gave you the link on it.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 01:18 PM
Hey DS, did you ever get back with that Constituional Monarchy. As I thought I gave you the link on it.MMC, apologies, not yet. I promise I'll get back to it though. Lots of stuff to post about here, and the excitement of the moment around HealthCare got the better of me.

MMC
04-01-2012, 01:23 PM
MMC, apologies, not yet. I promise I'll get back to it though. Lots of stuff to post about here, and the excitement of the moment around HealthCare got the better of me.

NP.....take your time. It isn't going anywhere. :smiley:

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 01:26 PM
NP.....take your time. It isn't going anywhere. :smiley:My wife has got dibs on my time very shortly. But i will get back to it.

To be honest with you, I need to study up on what Constitutional Monarchy implies, and the practical considerations.

I asked about what would happen if Obama would propose "it" - me not knowing what "it" fully implies - because I'd like to see our political leaders function on solutions that can actually pass. Somehow we who think the country is not where it ought to be need to figure out a practical, achievable path for getting us "there". That is where I'd like to go with this conversation.

Chris
04-01-2012, 01:36 PM
dsolo:
Directly to your point, Peter, the language of Federalist Paper 42 by Madison most often cited as demonstrating the limited original aim of the Commerce Clause, on its face supports the diametrically opposed conclusion, that the reasons and purposes for the clause are NOT LIMITED to those that Madison Discussed in Federalist Paper 42:

"To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual."

The above quote demonstrates three things:...

A fuller citation:
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States....

Clearly Madison is speaking of federal regulation of commerce between states, import and export, as his notes say, tariffs, imposts and taxes, not regulating individual citizens.

Chris
04-01-2012, 01:40 PM
That is not true. I said private activities having in aggregate a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached by Congress, which is exactly what Scalia said in Gonzalez v. Roach.

That said, the transcript shows that he would not apply the Necessary and Proper to permit the exercise of Commerce Clause power where to do so would upset State Sovereignty. Scalia did not walk back his earlier statement, he just gave an indication of where he'd draw the line.

I just posted a long reply to Peter and all and will wait till folks have a chance to look at that before weighing in further on this point. See, in particular, the very last paragraphs of that long response.

Your premises in the long response don't hold. Nor do you connect them to your conclusion.
In sum, - PRESENTLY -I see the plain language of the Commerce Clause enumerating a power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, including implicitly and by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the power necessary to make that grant effectual. PRESENTLY - I don't see anything in the Federalist Papers relating to either Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to the contrary. PRESENTLY - I see private activity in aggregate placing a huge burden on Interstate Commerce which Congress has a right to regulate. Addressing only the question whether Congress had the power to address the source of this burden, I can only conclude the answer is YES.
In short, while your premises support what you say in red, with regard to broad powers to regulate commerce among the states, you fail to connect anything Madison said to what you say in green above with regard to regulating private citizens.

Cite the relevant part of Scalia's opinion in Gonzalez v. Roach, as I cited him from the other day, which you omitted in your quoting me, and which go directly against your contention, to repost:
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- that's -* it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?

GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that -- this is a regulation -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, that wasn't my point. That is not the only constitutional principle that exists.

GENERAL VERRILLI: But it -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that's a principle?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Of course we do, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. That's what we are talking about here.

Conley
04-01-2012, 01:43 PM
I'd like to see our political leaders function on solutions that can actually pass. Somehow we who think the country is not where it ought to be need to figure out a practical, achievable path for getting us "there". That is where I'd like to go with this conversation.

That would be great. It's easy to point out all that's wrong, but harder to come up with practical solutions that we can try to get our elected officials to follow through on.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 02:11 PM
Your premises in the long response don't hold.That's a conclusion with no explanation or support. Why don't you think they hold up? Please reply against the longer response so I can easily see what you are talking about.


Cite the relevant part of Scalia's opinion, as I cited him from the other day, which you omitted in your quoting me, and which go directly against your contention, to repost:You cited the transcript of his questions and responses. My response is directly to what he said there. He did NOT walk back what he said in Gonzales.

Scalia did clearly say (see below) what I said he did in the Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can reach purely private activity outside of Interstate Commerce under the Necessary and Proper Clause, if the impact of these private activities on Interstate Commerce is substantial. In the excerpt from the transcript you have quoted from, Scalia says Congress may have power to reach purely private activity having such a substantial impact, but not every exercise of that regulatory power may be "proper". He says, sovereignty considerations may make a particular exercise of that power improper.

Peter was making an argument that the power to reach private activities that are not Commercial are completely outside the scope of the Commerce Clause power. That is question 1 that I respond to in my long response. I say his interpretation of scope of the Commerce Clause is simply wrong.

The question Scalia addresses in the transcript - whether the power can be used to regulate commerce in the way that ObamaCare would do it - is the second question I don't get to - yet.


Here are some of the pertinent things that Scalia said in his concurrence. If you think there is a part of what he says in this case that doesn't support what I've said, quote it.




"I agree with the Court's holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents' cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for personal, medicinal use. I write separately because my understanding of the doctrinal foundation on which that holding rests is, if not inconsistent with that of the Court, at least more nuanced."
.


". . .unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone. Rather, as this Court has acknowledged since at least United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72 (1838), (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6394794532179588128&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38)Congress's regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause. Id., at 78; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 301-302 (1964) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3963649278944272593&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110, 119 (1942) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13769368656621947141&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342, 353 (1914) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=7127515617815129226&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38); United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 39-40 (1895) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7328873774069918300&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38).[1] (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15647611274064109718#[45]) And the category of "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce," Lopez, supra, at 559 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18310045251039502778&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38), is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws 35*35 governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

MMC
04-01-2012, 02:11 PM
That would be great. It's easy to point out all that's wrong, but harder to come up with practical solutions that we can try to get our elected officials to follow through on.


True we have had many that had solutions to solve the problems. None ever being involved into politics. All can have ideas as to what to do and where to start. But it's like CL stated. It falls on deaf ears. I have written POL's, visited POL's, Talked directly to Pol's, Local, State and Federal. Then started going after the Media as they are in bed with them.

Some solutions are simple and others are not. We can all agree with ideas as to go about things. How to build something and make it better. Each can add their own little part but until the status quo is changed. Where does it take anyone?

Chris
04-01-2012, 02:17 PM
dsolo: "That's a conclusion with no explanation or support."

I gave you an explanation, please cite it fully and respond to it.

I'll look at you Scalia citation...

Chris
04-01-2012, 02:21 PM
dsolo, an analysis of Scalia's opinion...

"I agree with the Court's holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents' cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for personal, medicinal use."

That case concerned commercial activity. The mandate concerns inactivity.

"...unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...."

In short, the opposite of what you claimed. He finds the power elsewhere. Of course he didn't contradict himself this week.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 02:40 PM
Even Scalia, not fan of expansive interpretation of enumerated powers, concedes that the acts of individual having a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached through a combination of Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

And the novel question is whether inaction of individuals having a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached through a combination of Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

Chris
04-01-2012, 02:45 PM
And the novel question is whether inaction of individuals having a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce can be reached through a combination of Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

According to Scalia, in Raich, not even an individual's activities can: "...unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...." Hat tip dsolo.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 03:00 PM
Peter was making an argument that the power to reach private activities that are not Commercial are completely outside the scope of the Commerce Clause power. That is question 1 that I respond to in my long response. I say his interpretation of scope of the Commerce Clause is simply wrong.



I agree that case law does not support my position, but then my position is that SCOTUS got it wrong! :smiley:

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 03:03 PM
According to Scalia, in Raich, not even an individual's activities can: "...unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...." Hat tip dsolo.

I think that our Founders would turn in the grave to hear that argument.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 03:08 PM
dsolo:

A fuller citation:

Clearly Madison is speaking of federal regulation of commerce between states, import and export, as his notes say, tariffs, imposts and taxes, not regulating individual citizens.The argument is not that Commerce Clause is about regulating citizens. We are talking about Congress' right to regulate all forms of Interstate Commerce, and not just the kind Peter was talking about.

Madison, as I demonstrated, would have you read the express grant to include powers necessary and proper to make it effective, including, as Scalia stated, private activities which in aggregate have a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 03:14 PM
I agree that case law does not support my position, but then my position is that SCOTUS got it wrong! :smiley:I appreciate the clarification.

Do you also reject Scalia's view, as supported by Madison, that all of the enumerated grants, including but not limited to the Commerce Clause, are to be interpreted to include the power necessary to make those grants effective? As Chris has now made plain, Scalia has pointed out in oral argument on ObamaCare, that Necessary and Proper powers are not carte blanche.

My view and Scalia's are not the same, but I mention Scalia here because I believe his views on the limited nature of enumerated powers are generally regarded as being the most Conservative.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 03:43 PM
dsolo, an analysis of Scalia's opinion...

"I agree with the Court's holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents' cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for personal, medicinal use."

That case concerned commercial activity. Not correct. It involved purely private activity - individuals growing marijuana at home for medicinal purposes - which was not itself commercial activity between the states. It, and like activities by others, in aggregate were found to have a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce that Congress wanted to shut down, and so the power to so regulate was upheld.


The mandate concerns inactivity.50 billions dollars worth of burden to interstate commerce from uninsured folks getting health care on an urgent care basis is not inactivity. That's plenty of action, and plenty of burden.


"...unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...."

You're quoting Scalia's concurrence but are forgetting the punch line: He gave thumbs up to the law based on BOTH Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. The CSA was upheld as against private non-commercial activity as necessary and proper to make the grant of Commerce Clause power effective.

Certainly, the Necessary and Proper Clause and Commerce Clause apply in the case of ObamaCare as well.


In short, the opposite of what you claimed.No, I got it right, and stated it right, as Peter has conceded.


He finds the power elsewhere. Of course he didn't contradict himself this week.Scalia's "nuanced" concurrence found the power to act in two sources, the Commerce Clause with additional support from the Necessary and Proper clause. The point is Congress, according to the Supreme Court and Madison, has the power to regulate here.

The remaining question is whether the means chosen to regulate is proper. Scalia suggests it may be improper as against State sovereignty. That is the point your transcript excerpt raises, a point I have not yet begun to address.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 04:25 PM
I think that Scalia recognized that Madison, the father of the commerce clause, believed that the Articles of Confederation were flawed in that they left the federal government with too little power. I agree. But I think that Scalia took Madison's words out of context. The Commerce Clause was never intended to be a sword with which the federal government could dictate to and dominate the States. It was a shield, that was to be used to facilitate trade and prevent protectionist activities by the States.

We still have to consider the context of the reason that the Constitution was created. It was to give a federal government specific and enumerated powers and in those areas the Federal government was supreme to the States. Outside of those powers the States were still sovereign.

To read the Commerce Clause as expansively as Scalia did is to disregard State sovereignty. We might as well disband the State governments if that were the case. And the States had to approve the Constitution and put the vote to their citizens. Had the States thought that this interpretation was on the table, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

So yes, Madison believed that the federal government could use all necessary power to effect its enumerated powers, Madison did not believe this to be a tool to create a totalitarian federal government. The enumerated powers were within the context of limited power. Not total power.

Yes Madison believed that the federal government did not have enough power under the Articles of Confederation; but Madison also did not wish to create an all powerful federal government.

Chris
04-01-2012, 04:28 PM
dsolo "It involved purely private activity"

Right, activity, which was my point, and several others' here. The mandate concerned inactivity. By cutting my response up into small pieces and taking them out of context you avoid addressing that central issue.

"You're quoting Scalia's concurrence"

I quoted what you quoted. Now you want to retract it?

"He gave thumbs up to the law based on BOTH Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause."

No he did not: "thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...."

"as Peter has conceded"

Peter's concession was on case law not Scalia's opinion which directly counters what you claim he wrote. And peter disagrees with Scalia in Reich: "To read the Commerce Clause as expansively as Scalia did is to disregard State sovereignty."

"The remaining question is whether the means chosen to regulate is proper."

Then it has not been show necessary and proper, which indeed is Scalia's point.

Chris
04-01-2012, 04:32 PM
I think that our Founders would turn in the grave to hear that argument.

I take what he says there is the power to regulate in the Raich case is not found in the Commerce clause, but found, according to him, elsewhere.

I too agree that Scalia overreached. Sometimes his beliefs override his principles. (He also overreached in the DC gun case.)

wingrider
04-01-2012, 04:44 PM
I take what he says there is the power to regulate in the Raich case is not found in the Commerce clause, but found, according to him, elsewhere.

I too agree that Scalia overreached. Sometimes his beliefs override his principles. (He also overreached in the DC gun case.)
how so chris on the DC case how did he overreach in your opinion.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 05:44 PM
dsolo "It involved purely private activity"

Right, activity, which was my point, and several others' here. The mandate concerned inactivity. By cutting my response up into small pieces and taking them out of context you avoid addressing that central issue.

"You're quoting Scalia's concurrence"

I quoted what you quoted. Now you want to retract it?

"He gave thumbs up to the law based on BOTH Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause."

No he did not: "thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone...."

"as Peter has conceded"

Peter's concession was on case law not Scalia's opinion which directly counters what you claim he wrote. And peter disagrees with Scalia in Reich: "To read the Commerce Clause as expansively as Scalia did is to disregard State sovereignty."

"The remaining question is whether the means chosen to regulate is proper."

Then it has not been show necessary and proper, which indeed is Scalia's point.

Chris what you write about what I wrote ain't right.

Necessary and Proper clause AND Commerce Clause is the basis for Scalia's comments in the concurrence.

Necessary and Proper clause is NEVER the EXCLUSIVE basis for any decision - it is not an independent grant of power, rather like hamburger helper for the enumerating clauses.

Peter was stating what he'd like the law to be. I pointed out, correctly, that it is not the law. And Peter conceded as much.

The Excerpt from the Transcript you cite does NOT show that Scalia was against the use of Commerce Clause to reach purely private non commercial activity. He said, in his opinion, Commerce Clause plus Necessary and Proper are required. The Necessary and Proper clause together with Commerce Clause is there for ObamaCare too. AND, most importantly, according to the majority, Necessary and Proper was not necessary to uphold the result. Either way, it doesn't matter, which is why Scalia referred to his reasoning as presenting perhaps a "nuanced" difference from the Majority view.

Finally, although Peter has not conceded this point yet, not all Founders would roll over in their graves to see the Commerce Clause applied to purely private activity - getting their health care costs subsidized by the rest of us. As I've showed, what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers on Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses squares very nicely with this result - even if the scenario to which the Clause's object was applied was a part of "futurity" and not something imagined at the time.

Again, the final question - whether requiring the purchase of a insurance - is "proper" regulation is something i can speak to when next I get a major block of time to write.

wingrider
04-01-2012, 05:48 PM
here is the deal folks if the supreme court decides in favor of Obamacare, I am gonna use that service for everthing I can I don't care if its a fucking hangnail or an ingrown hair, they are gonna force me to buy a product,, I am damn sure gonna use it and abuse it,

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 06:05 PM
Chris what you write about what I wrote ain't right.

Necessary and Proper clause AND Commerce Clause is the basis for Scalia's comments in the concurrence.

Necessary and Proper clause is NEVER the EXCLUSIVE basis for any decision - it is not an independent grant of power, rather like hamburger helper for the enumerating clauses.

Peter was stating what he'd like the law to be. I pointed out, correctly, that it is not the law. And Peter conceded as much.

The Excerpt from the Transcript you cite does NOT show that Scalia was against the use of Commerce Clause to reach purely private non commercial activity. He said, in his opinion, Commerce Clause plus Necessary and Proper are required. The Necessary and Proper clause together with Commerce Clause is there for ObamaCare too. AND, most importantly, according to the majority, Necessary and Proper was not necessary to uphold the result. Either way, it doesn't matter, which is why Scalia referred to his reasoning as presenting perhaps a "nuanced" difference from the Majority view.

Finally, although Peter has not conceded this point yet, not all Founders would roll over in their graves to see the Commerce Clause applied to purely private activity - getting their health care costs subsidized by the rest of us. As I've showed, what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers on Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses squares very nicely with this result - even if the scenario to which the Clause's object was applied was a part of "futurity" and not something imagined at the time.

Again, the final question - whether requiring the purchase of a insurance - is "proper" regulation is something i can speak to when next I get a major block of time to write.

I would concur that some Founders wanted much more power invested in the federal government than what was agreed upon with the ratification of the Constitution. But they didn't make their case and win the day. I would however, doubt that any of the Founders wanted an all powerful federal government. (But then there was talk earlier about making Washington a king....) Upholding the mandate would create an all powerful federal government. Little would be beyond their reach.

With that said, and with accepting current SCOTUS case-law as valid, I think that Congress could more easily craft a single payer system supported via taxes which would pass SCOTUS muster than this Obamacare scheme. It is much more radical to compel citizens to enter into private contracts with private corporations than it is for Congress to tax us and provide for us healthcare.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 06:06 PM
here is the deal folks if the supreme court decides in favor of Obamacare, I am gonna use that service for everthing I can I don't care if its a fucking hangnail or an ingrown hair, they are gonna force me to buy a product,, I am damn sure gonna use it and abuse it,

Which illustrates part of the problem- it does not truly address cost control. Except through rationing.

Chris
04-01-2012, 06:14 PM
[/B] how so chris on the DC case how did he overreach in your opinion.

While on the face of it it was a win for gun rights, he opened the door to further regulation of guns by the federal government.

Posner, In Defense of Looseness (http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness): "If constitutional decisions are to be determined by the balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court, the fig-leafing that we find in Heller--the historicizing glaze on personal values and policy preferences--will continue to be irresistibly tempting to the justices, with their large and tireless staffs and their commitment to a mystique of "objective" interpretation. There is no way to purge political principles from constitutional decision-making, but they do not have to be liberal or conservative principles. A preference for judicial modesty--for less interference by the Supreme Court with the other branches of government--cannot be derived by some logical process from constitutional text or history."

Chris
04-01-2012, 06:18 PM
Chris what you write about what I wrote ain't right.

Necessary and Proper clause AND Commerce Clause is the basis for Scalia's comments in the concurrence.

Necessary and Proper clause is NEVER the EXCLUSIVE basis for any decision - it is not an independent grant of power, rather like hamburger helper for the enumerating clauses.

Peter was stating what he'd like the law to be. I pointed out, correctly, that it is not the law. And Peter conceded as much.

The Excerpt from the Transcript you cite does NOT show that Scalia was against the use of Commerce Clause to reach purely private non commercial activity. He said, in his opinion, Commerce Clause plus Necessary and Proper are required. The Necessary and Proper clause together with Commerce Clause is there for ObamaCare too. AND, most importantly, according to the majority, Necessary and Proper was not necessary to uphold the result. Either way, it doesn't matter, which is why Scalia referred to his reasoning as presenting perhaps a "nuanced" difference from the Majority view.

Finally, although Peter has not conceded this point yet, not all Founders would roll over in their graves to see the Commerce Clause applied to purely private activity - getting their health care costs subsidized by the rest of us. As I've showed, what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers on Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses squares very nicely with this result - even if the scenario to which the Clause's object was applied was a part of "futurity" and not something imagined at the time.

Again, the final question - whether requiring the purchase of a insurance - is "proper" regulation is something i can speak to when next I get a major block of time to write.

You're not arguing with anything I said, you're just saying you're right and I'm wrong. You keep making claims but your citations support the opposite. When will you show anything to counter what I've said and shown?

In short, you can't both argue your case and then play judge and jury who's right and wrong.

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 06:58 PM
You're not arguing with anything I said,The Constitution says what it says. Madison said what he said. The Majority in Raich said what it said. Scalia said what he said. Peter said what he said. And I have said what I had to say about what all they said. It's all there for anyone to read. I'm confident I have been honest, accurate and complete in my reportage.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 07:02 PM
The Constitution says what it says. Madison said what he said. The Majority in Raich said what it said. Scalia said what he said. Peter said what he said. And I have said what I had to say about what all they said. It's all there for anyone to read. I'm confident I have been honest, accurate and complete in my reportage.

As always. :)

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 07:31 PM
I would concur that some Founders wanted much more power invested in the federal government than what was agreed upon with the ratification of the Constitution. But they didn't make their case and win the day. I would however, doubt that any of the Founders wanted an all powerful federal government. (But then there was talk earlier about making Washington a king....) Upholding the mandate would create an all powerful federal government. Little would be beyond their reach.

With that said, and with accepting current SCOTUS case-law as valid, I think that Congress could more easily craft a single payer system supported via taxes which would pass SCOTUS muster than this Obamacare scheme. It is much more radical to compel citizens to enter into private contracts with private corporations than it is for Congress to tax us and provide for us healthcare.In the end, I don't think any of the Founders wanted an all powerful Federal Government, and certainly neither do I.

Your conclusion, that approving the mandate would create an all powerful federal government, where little would be beyond their reach, that is the issue I'd love to discuss at length. Obviously, it is the question that gave the Conservative Justices greatest pause, and is the one that would be the most fun for me to look at from every angle.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 08:19 PM
The Constitution says what it says. Madison said what he said. The Majority in Raich said what it said. Scalia said what he said. Peter said what he said. And I have said what I had to say about what all they said. It's all there for anyone to read. I'm confident I have been honest, accurate and complete in my reportage.

I am happy to be included in that list!

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 08:21 PM
In the end, I don't think any of the Founders wanted an all powerful Federal Government, and certainly neither do I.

Your conclusion, that approving the mandate would create an all powerful federal government, where little would be beyond their reach, that is the issue I'd love to discuss at length. Obviously, it is the question that gave the Conservative Justices greatest pause, and is the one that would be the most fun for me to look at from every angle.

I certainly agree. And I want to thank you for good conversation. Too many people are unable or unwilling to take the effort.

:dankk2:

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 08:28 PM
I am happy to be included in that list!Boss, you have my complete attention. And thank you for great conversation and the spirit with which you've engaged with me.

Chris
04-01-2012, 08:29 PM
The Constitution says what it says. Madison said what he said. The Majority in Raich said what it said. Scalia said what he said. Peter said what he said. And I have said what I had to say about what all they said. It's all there for anyone to read. I'm confident I have been honest, accurate and complete in my reportage.
And I'm sure you think so.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 08:38 PM
Boss, you have my complete attention. And thank you for great conversation and the spirit with which you've engaged with me.

Please call me Peter. Or Pete. It really doesn't matter. I don't want to be a boss. :smiley:

ramone
04-01-2012, 08:48 PM
I'm not even going to say it...........Yet!!

MMC
04-01-2012, 08:58 PM
I certainly agree. And I want to thank you for good conversation. Too many people are unable or unwilling to take the effort.

:dankk2:

As always Pete!!!!! Althought it does take those that know.....what one is talking about.

MMC
04-01-2012, 09:03 PM
:yo2: Hats off to you DS for showing that crew you ride along with.....how it's done! I see you are not all up into innuendo and inference. :thumbsup:

dsolo802
04-01-2012, 09:08 PM
Please call me Peter. Or Pete. It really doesn't matter. I don't want to be a boss. :smiley:You've got it, Pete.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 07:44 AM
With that said, and with accepting current SCOTUS case-law as valid, I think that Congress could more easily craft a single payer system supported via taxes which would pass SCOTUS muster than this Obamacare scheme. It is much more radical to compel citizens to enter into private contracts with private corporations than it is for Congress to tax us and provide for us healthcare.Agree 100%. Now the only problem is getting it done within the confines of the rules/regulations our Founders put forth.

Never happen, in today's climate. Prob. fodder for a different thread.

wingrider
04-02-2012, 07:49 AM
I don't know if there is a thread on this or not, ( haven't looked) but it seems there is a 17 Trillion dollar hole in the health care bill, it basically will add 17 trillion to unfunded liabilities , I hope the supreme court takes that into consideration when making their decision,, added to what our unfunded liabilities are it would put us close to 200 percent of GDP.

MMC
04-02-2012, 07:57 AM
I don't know if there is a thread on this or not, ( haven't looked) but it seems there is a 17 Trillion dollar hole in the health care bill, it basically will add 17 trillion to unfunded liabilities , I hope the supreme court takes that into consideration when making their decision,, added to what our unfunded liabilities are it would put us close to 200 percent of GDP.

Yes WR.....there is a thread up with those states and moreover there was quite a bit more to that piece. I figured after 4 days in the same 3 threads. They might have figured it out.

Peter1469
04-02-2012, 03:15 PM
I don't think that the funding issues outside of the mandate were part of the lower court decisions. So the issue is not ripe for SCOTUS review.

Chris
04-02-2012, 07:43 PM
I don't know if there is a thread on this or not, ( haven't looked) but it seems there is a 17 Trillion dollar hole in the health care bill, it basically will add 17 trillion to unfunded liabilities , I hope the supreme court takes that into consideration when making their decision,, added to what our unfunded liabilities are it would put us close to 200 percent of GDP.

But but but wasn't ObamaRomneyCare supposed to reduce costs?

Mainecoons
04-02-2012, 07:47 PM
Hey Wing, look at the bright side. We're starting to make the Greeks look fiscally responsible! That ain't easy, you gotta admit!!

:grin:

MMC
04-02-2012, 08:42 PM
Hey Wing, look at the bright side. We're starting to make the Greeks look fiscally responsible! That ain't easy, you gotta admit!!

:grin:

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

wingrider
04-03-2012, 12:18 AM
Hey Wing, look at the bright side. We're starting to make the Greeks look fiscally responsible! That ain't easy, you gotta admit!!

:grin:
:greatjob: now you done it .. that made me laugh//

Dagny
04-03-2012, 05:42 AM
:greatjob: now you done it .. that made me laugh//Many attribute tax evasion to the demise of the Greek economy. That, and a history of unchecked borrowing/spending.

Sounds familiar.

MMC
04-03-2012, 09:28 AM
Many attribute Greeks Problems with their entitlement of paying everybody a pension for life. Thats every single individual in the country. Taxes are a small part of it.

Isn't that correct MC, Chris and Pete?

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Many attribute tax evasion to the demise of the Greek economy. That, and a history of unchecked borrowing/spending.

Sounds familiar.

Who are the tax evaders I wonder?

Dagny
04-03-2012, 09:47 AM
Who are the tax evaders I wonder?

Sorry...I was still chuckling at the silly post above yours.


Seems like tax evasion is the favorite Greek pastime.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/07/11/110711ta_talk_surowiecki

Mister D
04-03-2012, 09:54 AM
Who are the tax evaders I wonder?

Dagny's article gives you some idea but you're not going to like it. :grin:

Chris
04-03-2012, 09:58 AM
Many attribute Greeks Problems with their entitlement of paying everybody a pension for life. Thats every single individual in the country. Taxes are a small part of it.

Isn't that correct MC, Chris and Pete?

I know a woman from Germany I talk to now and then who is a social democrat and who blames the Greek default on tax-evasion, I don't think all Greeks, but it seems pervasive. I think government overspending on various entitlements contributes more to the problem, but I'm not a social democrat.

The real problem, however, is one with financial markets, and collusion between banks and government creating a problem not only Greece couldn't sustain but the EU likely won't be able to. And I think we can find it here in the US as well. This was presented in another thread: Why the EU Will Fail (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2231-Why-the-EU-Will-Fail).