1
   

OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:48 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
H20Man and georgeob bring up the rear.


You make it sound as if they are equals. That's not fair! H2oman at least provides reasoned argument and he spells better.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Then again if you had any understanding of the Commerce Clause, had done any scholarship on the issue or even really any research AT ALL you would know that the case against HCreform is very, very weak.
.......
One way or the other, the courts will decide this, and I'm very confident that they will continue to uphold the Commerce Clause - just as they have for the last 30-40 years.

Cycloptichorn


A Federal Judge has already ruled on the matter, and he found the insurance mandate to be an unjustifiable distortion of the commerce clause. He then declared the law both unconstitutional and void. That's where the matter stands until, either a revised law is passed or the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Additional challenges offered by several groups of states are also pending. Meanwhile the Administration is pretending that nothing has changed and that the judicial ruling doesn't exist. However several states are already refusing to undertake mandated activities to set up or participate in insurance exchanges.

Once again you are making vague references to your own scholarship on the matter as some kind of argument from presumed authority. However, the fact is you have offered no argument and no indications of real scholarship.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 11:58 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Then again if you had any understanding of the Commerce Clause, had done any scholarship on the issue or even really any research AT ALL you would know that the case against HCreform is very, very weak.
.......
One way or the other, the courts will decide this, and I'm very confident that they will continue to uphold the Commerce Clause - just as they have for the last 30-40 years.

Cycloptichorn


A Federal Judge has already ruled on the matter, and he found the insurance mandate to be an unjustifiable distortion of the commerce clause. He then declared the law both unconstitutional and void. That's where the matter stands until, either a revised law is passed or the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court.


Is this serious?

Do you not realize that a different Federal judge in a different jurisdiction ruled the opposite? Actually, that two of them have? And what more, that judge you are speaking of specifically denied to issue an injunction halting implementation of the law?

You know better than to write tripe like this. The Feds have appealed this to the district court and nothing prevents them from continuing with the implementation of the law in the meantime. What you write makes no sense in the face of the reality of the situation.

Quote:
Additional challenges offered by several groups of states are also pending. Meanwhile the Administration is pretending that nothing has changed and that the judicial ruling doesn't exist. However several states are already refusing to undertake mandated activities to set up or participate in insurance exchanges.


I don't know if you recall or not, but Federal law trumps State law. A ruling by a single Circuit court judge doesn't invalidate Federal law and it doesn't remove the responsibilities States have to follow those laws.

Otherwise the 9th circuit would have re-defined our political world several times over, as I'm sure you know.

You're forwarding a political position as if it had legal validity, which is silly.

Quote:

Once again you are making vague references to your own scholarship on the matter as some kind of argument from presumed authority. However, the fact is you have offered no argument and no indications of real scholarship.


I have in fact done so, and offered those arguments here on A2K, in the form of both logic and in links to scholarly articles discussing the issue from a variety of sources and in several threads. The fact that you don't bother to read those posts or their supporting material, and you can't be bothered to do an ounce of research for yourself, doesn't mean that others don't do these things.

Nothing I've read indicates to me that the court will reverse its' decades-long trend of upholding the right of the Federal gov't to regulate economic activity through the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Those who believe that it will even be a close case are, just as you did above, projecting a political position onto the court instead of bothering to look at the actual underlying legal issues. Can you tell us exactly why you and other Conservatives are so sure that the SC will overturn the court case?

This piece by Laurence Tribe earlier this month sums up the argument well -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html

Quote:
Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law's constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?

Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals -- healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse -- must participate to the extent of their economic ability.

In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be "difficult, if not impossible" to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congress's power to establish.

The justices aren't likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic "activity," not "inactivity," like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don't purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can't pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.

Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so. After all, the individual mandate is enforced through taxation, even if supporters have been reluctant to point that out.

---

To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution's necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many unfairly caricature as the "swing vote," deserves better as well.... Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law.


The truth is that I'd love to have a discussion of the merits and constitutionality of the HC mandate based on previous SC decisions and currently existing law. Let me know when you're either ready or interested in doing so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 06:43 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:



H20Man and georgeob bring up the rear.



Your dumb liberal rear is way too large for any of us to take interest in.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:15 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Laughing

It's always amazing to me to see how many people will argue against the wisdom of requiring people to carry insurance that they themselves wouldn't dream of going without.

Cycloptichorn
I have insurance and I would argue any day against making people feed the profit of insurance companies... This is America, and if the bill does not get paid, then the hospitals close... Bankruptcy is no longer a crime, and though it was made legal to encourage businesses to take risks, it is there for everyone, and now it is an encouragement for businesses to push people to the brink of debt slavery... But the bill will get paid, and if people do not have insurance because they cannot be squeezed for profit, and they get sick or injured, the government, meaning all the people will pay, sooner or later... The whole notion of Obama care costing more is foolish... The cost will be the same and no lower until the government makes an insurance pool of the whole nation, and taxes according to risk...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:26 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Fortunately for this country, most of its people appreciate upward mobility and are not content with living on the dole. God help us when they consider voting for permanent underclass status (left wing policy) is in their best interests.


So the middle class that is being destroy by the amazing concentration of the total wealth of the society in a smaller and ever smaller group is a good thing?

That we should no longer have a middle class but just the poor without such things as basic medical care and the super rich?

None of the suffering matter if the dream of becoming part of this ever smaller group of the wealthy can be maintain is that your position?

You do know that this will in the end result in the destruction of the society in the same manner as the Roman Republic?


Bill; there would be no demoralized population and no one playing the lottery if there were any upward mobility... It is just a myth to cover the fact that the rich do not work and no one ever gets rich by working... We were built as a nation with the worst faults of the Roman Republic incorporated into our Constitution... None the less, we are a commonwealth, and we deserve to be supported by the commonwealth since the commonwealth seems to believe having the commonwealth in a few hands is better than all the people holding the land for themselves... In Rome the slaves drove the free men of the land... In England, and in Ireland it was sheep who drove the free men from the land... In this country it is machinery that is driving the people from the land...It is all good so long as everyone understands that even in few and private hands the land must still pay for its own defense and feed the population....The dole is a dirty word, and so is entitlements; but we are entitled to our due, and if we should be cheated out of those dues completely, our inalienable rights will soon follow...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:27 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


What these mouth-breathing idiots don't understand


You've just described liberal progressive left wing nut democrats spot-on.
Your words describe you more honestly than you would ever describe yourself...
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:45 am
@Fido,
You are projecting thoughts of yourself.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 02:10 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
It is just a myth to cover the fact that the rich do not work and no one ever gets rich by working...


Sorry that is not completely true as the two formers owners of my company started it on a shoe string as upper middle class men at best and at the end was worth by Fortune Mag. est. 500 millions each.

The one owner lived in a middle class neighborhood driving an older car then mine to the end of his life.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 07:55 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
It is just a myth to cover the fact that the rich do not work and no one ever gets rich by working...


Sorry that is not completely true as the two formers owners of my company started it on a shoe string as upper middle class men at best and at the end was worth by Fortune Mag. est. 500 millions each.

The one owner lived in a middle class neighborhood driving an older car then mine to the end of his life.


So who was paying his wages while he went from shoestring to 500 million... I would bet he was paying wages to many and reaping profit from each of them...
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 08:28 am
@Fido,
Quote:
So who was paying his wages while he went from shoestring to 500 million... I would bet he was paying wages to many and reaping profit from each of them...


Frankly I do not understand your complain the man found a way of counting human blood cells and sizing them by means of an electric current now known as the Coulter’s Principal and build a world wide company to the benefit of everyone concern including the billions of people that had their blood analyze in the last sixty years in a far cheaper and far more accurate manner then the older methods.

He produced high paying jobs for tens of thousands of people in his own company and hundred of thousands of such jobs indirectly that but for him would not had existed.

When he did passed away and the business were sold he let over three hundreds millions dollars to be divide among the employees base not on their positions in the company but only on their length of service in the company.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 09:02 am
@Fido,
Oh this was the mission statement of the Company that I never found a reason to question during the life times of the founders.

Science serving Humanity.
We exist to advance medical science.
We apply the infinite promise of biotechnology to the world's health care needs.
Our mission is to recognized as the world leader in blood analysis systems.
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 09:19 am
@BillRM,
Don't mind Fido - he's re-hashing an old Marxist theme on the labor theory of value. E.g., if manufacturing a chair takes raw material like wood and metal nails plus 10 man-hours to manufacture, then the chair is worth value of wood+metal nails+10 hours of workman's time.

The fact that never in history were chairs sold for that price, but only for what the market would bear, is easily explained by the omission in that theory, which is the capital required in cutting down trees to bring wood planks to the workman, mining and manufacturing metal to produce nails (and, incidentally, also hammers), and paying the workman for 10 hours until his chair finally reaches a market and gets sold.

That, in one short paragraph, is the content of that endless tome "Das Kapital" - even a dim dog can understand it, if not Fido Smile
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 11:15 am
Health, Education and Labor Programs Face Cuts Under Major Spending Bill

House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 05:50 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
So who was paying his wages while he went from shoestring to 500 million... I would bet he was paying wages to many and reaping profit from each of them...


Frankly I do not understand your complain the man found a way of counting human blood cells and sizing them by means of an electric current now known as the Coulter’s Principal and build a world wide company to the benefit of everyone concern including the billions of people that had their blood analyze in the last sixty years in a far cheaper and far more accurate manner then the older methods.

He produced high paying jobs for tens of thousands of people in his own company and hundred of thousands of such jobs indirectly that but for him would not had existed.

When he did passed away and the business were sold he let over three hundreds millions dollars to be divide among the employees base not on their positions in the company but only on their length of service in the company.



Sounds like; not only a rich man, but a human being... That's one... Got any more or should we stop counting...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 06:17 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Don't mind Fido - he's re-hashing an old Marxist theme on the labor theory of value. E.g., if manufacturing a chair takes raw material like wood and metal nails plus 10 man-hours to manufacture, then the chair is worth value of wood+metal nails+10 hours of workman's time.

The fact that never in history were chairs sold for that price, but only for what the market would bear, is easily explained by the omission in that theory, which is the capital required in cutting down trees to bring wood planks to the workman, mining and manufacturing metal to produce nails (and, incidentally, also hammers), and paying the workman for 10 hours until his chair finally reaches a market and gets sold.

That, in one short paragraph, is the content of that endless tome "Das Kapital" - even a dim dog can understand it, if not Fido Smile
There is something entirely missing from your equasion, though the price of capital was never lost on Marx... Labor does create value... But so does nature, or if you prefer, God creates value... In the sense that capital never pays the true price of the nature it destroys which they benefit from, but all need to survive, is not an accident, but a crime.... And if they did not rob labor of its rights and is due in all it produced, it would be no where.... And you can see this in Muslim societies where interest is forbidden, that capital exists but little, and injustice and crime is no great problem.... One must literally have an army behind them to get away with injustice for any length of time... Try to remember that in England, the church failed to set limits on profits to a just level... To a capitalist there is no such thing as justice or a just profit... There is only what the market will bear... Okay; What shall the people say of such an attitude when the capitalists have carved up all the best parts of the commonwealth between them, and then can control both markets and production... What if they decide to maximize profits by shipping production abroad, and then selling into a dying market at below market value, running more domestic businesses out of town??? What if those people run our government, and make it act contrary to the needs of the people until the whole people are run into bankruptcy and bled white??? Your economics do not touch upon the whole cost of any product and what happens over the long haul to societies who suffer it...The price of empire has broke societies while making a few rich... We are paying a terrible price for the few rich we have... They act in their best interest while the whole house is falling down around our ears... Where is your success story of Capitalism... This people and our government are going broke... Capitalism is on continual life support when it is the economy which should support the government; but instead, in is the government that is continually supporting capital... What part of it works??? It would have died long ago except for our abundant environmment and that same environment used as a limitless toilet for all the waste of capital...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 04:12:29