Hassett wrote:So basically, congress was like, "eh, you're probably gonna use it so let's make it mandatory."
That's what they did with car insurance.
Advertisement
by Maineiacs » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:07 am
Hassett wrote:So basically, congress was like, "eh, you're probably gonna use it so let's make it mandatory."
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:15 am
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:15 am
Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:
1. The various bills were posted and available for anyone who wanted to to read. If you didn't that your fault.
2. There were also many analyses of the bills out there -- most importantly, the objective analyses of the Congressional Budget Office.
3. Nancy Pelosi did not say that. That is a lie.
BTW, here is a good source summarizing information about the Health Care Reform Act and its impacts.
The haste with which Congress passed and amended the bill really precluded any discussion.
Ms Pelosi did say, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." So if you want to split hairs, go ahead. The meaning is very much the same.
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:16 am
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:30 am
Bluth Corporation wrote:Rolling squid wrote:
lol wut? As per Marbury v. Madison and around two and a quarter centuries of prescient, constitutionality is exactly what the courts say.
So the courts get to be the final authority on the Constitution because the courts claimed they were the final authority on the Constitution? That hardly seems like a rational position to take.
All the courts decide is which interpretation of the Constitution will constrain government actions. That does not mean that that interpretation is necessarily the correct one.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:33 am
Caninope wrote:This only holds weight in the jurisdiction, and there are 14 other challenges to the law.
If only one of the courts rules otherwise, it is very probable it will be appealed.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:38 am
Smartephant wrote:I don't like your tone, boy.The Cat-Tribe wrote:
*sigh*The Cat-Tribe wrote:Ignoring for the moment that you failed completely to address any of the reasoning of the District Court or the long-standing caselaw on which it was based:
I started to in my subsequent post. This started with the Wickard case. That case was wrongly decided by a court threatened by the Roosevelt administration's court packing plan and needs to be overturned. The idea behind the ruling in that case was that if one man was permitted to exceed the wheat production limits on his own land for personal consumption he would not need to buy wheat from other producers and would have a negative effect on interstate commerce. An effect they made no attempt to quantify or calculate.
Besides, the legal basis for the case, Gibbon v Ogden really was a matter of interstate commerce. At issue was access to waterways that formed and crossed state borders. That's interstate commerce because there are transactions between parties in multiple states.
It did not mean that someone choosing not to engage in commerce of any kind was subject to regulation and penalty under the Commerce Clause because they weren't doing their patriotic duty in buying American made merchandise or some bullshit like that.The Cat-Tribe wrote:Please explain how making economic decisions that substantially affects interstate commerce is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" means regulating trade done between people within the US and foreign entities, trade between that crosses state lines, and trade with Native American tribes. If there is no transaction, especially if there is no transaction that crosses state lines, then it falls to the state or local government to regulate the activity, product, etc. It does not mean that a cancer patient that grows their own marijuana for personal consumption in the state of California should be subject to federal bans on the substance.The Cat-Tribe wrote:Please explain how seeking medical treatment and paying for it by whatever means -- whether it be private insurance, public assistance, or personal savings is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. (And don't try to claim that, simply because one is not at this very instant seeking medical treatment, they will never seek medical treatment and/or their economic decisions about how to pay for medical treatment will not affect interstate commerce.)
If you don't cross state lines to seek medical treatment you are engaging in intrastate commerce. If you argue that everything, even simply living, substantially affects interstate commerce then the Commerce Clause can be used by the feds to regulate, mandate, or ban anything, anywhere, anytime. It defeats the purpose of state and local governments and grants the feds unlimited power to do most anything, even telling you what brand of car to own or what foods to eat.
Remember that the Interstate Commerce Clause exists to define the authority of the States and Federal governments and limit the reach of the feds to interstate matters.
by Les Drapeaux Brulants » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:39 am
New Chalcedon wrote:Also for the nth time, the Democrats don't have a sufficient majority.
...
EDIT: Prime example of a majority being insufficient: Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Failed to overcome a Republican filibuster with the final vote being 56-43. 56 Senators - a clear majority - voted to allow the bill to come to a vote, but the incredibly recalcitrant GOP was able to prevent it even though they're the minority.
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:41 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Caninope wrote:This only holds weight in the jurisdiction, and there are 14 other challenges to the law.
If only one of the courts rules otherwise, it is very probable it will be appealed.
True. This is the first court to rule directly on the matter.
Of course, the inability of any of the "OMG its unconstitutional!" crowd to make a coherent argument as to how or why it is unconstitutional (and I include in that the briefs I have read in several of those other cases) doesn't exactly lead one to believe it is likely to be held unconstitutional.
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Ashmoria » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:46 am
Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:New Chalcedon wrote:Also for the nth time, the Democrats don't have a sufficient majority.
...
EDIT: Prime example of a majority being insufficient: Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Failed to overcome a Republican filibuster with the final vote being 56-43. 56 Senators - a clear majority - voted to allow the bill to come to a vote, but the incredibly recalcitrant GOP was able to prevent it even though they're the minority.
Then the Democrats need to start building a consensus. It's called governing. Instead, they want to redefine bi-partisan as being in total agreement with whatever the majority party proposes.
by Juristonia » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:14 am
Ashmoria wrote:oh dont be disingenuous.
when ONE senator can stop a bill its silly to talk about consensus. when obstructed and fillibustered bills end up passed with massive republican agreement, its silly to suggest that the problem is with the democrats.
of course there will always be bills that the republican caucus will strongly oppose. when they go back to just obstructing THOSE bills and those bills alone we can talk about the need for democrats to be more reasonable.
Ifreann wrote:Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.
by Bluth Corporation » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:24 am
by Bluth Corporation » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:29 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. The Constitution requires the judiciary to exercise the power of judicial review and declare void any properly challenged law that would violate the Constitution. See generally Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
[spoiler]Chief Justice Marshall explained this duty at length in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The unanimous Court in Marbury declared: "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" and "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Thus, the courts must void any law that violates the Constitution.
by Ashmoria » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:00 pm
Juristonia wrote:Ashmoria wrote:oh dont be disingenuous.
when ONE senator can stop a bill its silly to talk about consensus. when obstructed and fillibustered bills end up passed with massive republican agreement, its silly to suggest that the problem is with the democrats.
of course there will always be bills that the republican caucus will strongly oppose. when they go back to just obstructing THOSE bills and those bills alone we can talk about the need for democrats to be more reasonable.
Oh, come on. It's not like they're purposely trying to block everything the dems do for no other reason then to block it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/joe-miller-mcconnell-is-o_n_755588.html
by Les Drapeaux Brulants » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:01 pm
Ashmoria wrote:Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:Then the Democrats need to start building a consensus. It's called governing. Instead, they want to redefine bi-partisan as being in total agreement with whatever the majority party proposes.
oh dont be disingenuous.
when ONE senator can stop a bill its silly to talk about consensus. when obstructed and fillibustered bills end up passed with massive republican agreement, its silly to suggest that the problem is with the democrats.
of course there will always be bills that the republican caucus will strongly oppose. when they go back to just obstructing THOSE bills and those bills alone we can talk about the need for democrats to be more reasonable.
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:48 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. The Constitution requires the judiciary to exercise the power of judicial review and declare void any properly challenged law that would violate the Constitution. See generally Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
[spoiler]Chief Justice Marshall explained this duty at length in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The unanimous Court in Marbury declared: "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" and "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Thus, the courts must void any law that violates the Constitution.
That's nice, but how does it have to do with what I said?
Claiming the Supreme Court has the power/obligation to invalidate laws at odds with the Constitution (which isn't terribly controversial) is not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says.
Furthermore, your argument ultimately rests on "The Constitution gives the courts this power because the courts claim the Constitution gives them this power." Regardless of whether or not one believes that the courts do have that power, that is hardly a valid argument. There are plenty of good arguments as to why the Supreme Court possesses the authority and obligation to invalidate unconstitutional laws. I happen to agree with them. But that's not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says. That is metaphysically independent of anyone's fiat--yours, mine, or any court's.
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Sibirsky » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:08 pm
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:27 pm
Caninope wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:
True. This is the first court to rule directly on the matter.
Of course, the inability of any of the "OMG its unconstitutional!" crowd to make a coherent argument as to how or why it is unconstitutional (and I include in that the briefs I have read in several of those other cases) doesn't exactly lead one to believe it is likely to be held unconstitutional.
I do believe it's an overstep of the commerce clause, but I'm not gonna try and argue that with you right now for 2 reasons: I don't want to go sifting through decades of law concerning this, and the current briefs, and I don't really want to argue with someone I know I won't be able to change their opinion.
I'm sure you can agree with the second reason.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:47 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. The Constitution requires the judiciary to exercise the power of judicial review and declare void any properly challenged law that would violate the Constitution. See generally Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
[spoiler]Chief Justice Marshall explained this duty at length in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The unanimous Court in Marbury declared: "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" and "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Thus, the courts must void any law that violates the Constitution.
That's nice, but how does it have to do with what I said?
Claiming the Supreme Court has the power/obligation to invalidate laws at odds with the Constitution (which isn't terribly controversial) is not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says.
Furthermore, your argument ultimately rests on "The Constitution gives the courts this power because the courts claim the Constitution gives them this power." Regardless of whether or not one believes that the courts do have that power, that is hardly a valid argument. There are plenty of good arguments as to why the Supreme Court possesses the authority and obligation to invalidate unconstitutional laws. I happen to agree with them. But that's not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says. That is metaphysically independent of anyone's fiat--yours, mine, or any court's.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:51 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Wonderful. Why don't they mandate people buy from me?
by Occupied Deutschland » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:51 pm
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:06 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:
That's nice, but how does it have to do with what I said?
Claiming the Supreme Court has the power/obligation to invalidate laws at odds with the Constitution (which isn't terribly controversial) is not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says.
Furthermore, your argument ultimately rests on "The Constitution gives the courts this power because the courts claim the Constitution gives them this power." Regardless of whether or not one believes that the courts do have that power, that is hardly a valid argument. There are plenty of good arguments as to why the Supreme Court possesses the authority and obligation to invalidate unconstitutional laws. I happen to agree with them. But that's not the same as claiming it has the authority to determine what the Constitution actually says. That is metaphysically independent of anyone's fiat--yours, mine, or any court's.
Either you didn't read all (or even much beyond the first couple sentences) of what I posted or you are being disingenuous. (I admit that, because I was using recycled material, my headings may have emphasized the duty to invalidate over the authority to interpret, but both were there in the actual substance of what I posted.)
The Constitution itself and the writings of the authors of the Constitution make clear the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to determine what the Constitution actually says (subject only to the checks and balances provided within the Constitution itself).
I did not cite SCOTUS alone for this -- although Marbury (if one reads it) explains how this follows directly from the Constitution -- but cited at length the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Federalist #78, English law preceding the Constitution and adopted by the Founders, Acts of Congress, scholary works, etc.
If you truly dispute the point -- despite the clear mandate of the Constitution itself -- what evidence would you accept?
Your last sentence is pure "nonsense on stilts" -- to borrow a phrase crudely out-of-context. Rights or ethics may (or may not) be "metaphysically independent of anyone's fiat," but the Constitution is a man-made legal document. There are different schools of thought on how it should best be interpreted, but all agree the text is primary. The meaning is not some Platonic ideal floating in the ether. Similarly, the authority to interpret the document comes from the document (and, to the extent necessary, the same sources of authority that created the document) -- both of which clearly endow the U.S. Supreme Court with the ultimate authority over the meaning of the document as written. (It can, of course, be amended via the process set forth in the Constitution to change or add to the document.)
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Caninope » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:10 pm
Occupied Deutschland wrote:I could see this being constitutional in the eyes of the interstate commerce clause.
But I have one problem.
There isn't interstate commerce in health-care.
You can't go outside of your state for health-insurance and you only have a limited amount of choice in which hospital you actually go to.
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:24 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Occupied Deutschland » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:24 pm
Caninope wrote:Occupied Deutschland wrote:I could see this being constitutional in the eyes of the interstate commerce clause.
But I have one problem.
There isn't interstate commerce in health-care.
You can't go outside of your state for health-insurance and you only have a limited amount of choice in which hospital you actually go to.
The court has upheld the idea that if anything can rationally influence interstate commerce, it's constitutional to regulate.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Autumn Wind, Czechostan, Dimetrodon Empire, Floppa Lovers, Ifreann, Kager South, Lysset, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Platypus Bureaucracy, Tarsonis, The Holy Therns, The Huskar Social Union, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement