6th Circuit Upholds ObamaCare
A 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued its decision today in the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, ruling that "the minimum coverage provision [of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] is a valid legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause." The decision was 2-1, with Judge Boyce Martin writing for the majority. This is the first federal appellate court ruling on the health care law. The 4th Circuit and 11th Circuit will each be issuing their own decisions in the near future, with an ultimate decision most likely in the hands of the Supreme Court. Here's a key portion of Judge Martin's ruling today:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
In dissent, Judge James Graham strongly rejected the majority's interpretation:
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does…. Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.
Download the ruling here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just for the record, ObamaCare sucks regardless of whether it's constitutional.
There's a whole world of really stupid things out there that are both perfectly constitutional and completely stupid.
I'm not saying ObamaCare is constitutional, but I am saying that even if it is?
ObamaCare sucks.
Well stated, Ken 🙂
You won the thread.
I mandate that Obama fuck his hag of a wife instead of fucking America.
People should resist government mandates with force and start issuing some of their own mandates.
Does this surprise anyone? Face it, we're going to be stuck with Obamacare forever. With the exception of Prohibition, laws in the U.S. are never overturned once they're in place.
I can legally carry a switchblade now (as long as I don't leave NH).
Prohibition was just redirected.
What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?
Does the notion of federalism still have vitality?
Stupid, stupid questions.
There are no stupid questions, Warty.
Only stupid people who ask questions.
ignorant questions indeed considering the spate of divergent state issues SCOTUS has addressed.
Motherfucker.
I kind of hate that I'm so FUCKING immune to this shit anymore that I can't/don't get excited about it.
My reaction was, "Meh. Whatever...more to come."
That's kind of sad 🙁 Sad face for Almanian 🙁
obamacare is insurance regulation which provides remedies for pre-existing conditions & lack of coverage. the courts cannot strike it down w/o also striking the employeer mandate...which wont happen.
Anal why are you here? To DailyKos with you for further State and Fellate!
I don't care how legitimate you believe the goals of Obamacare are - if the government needs to act in excess of the powers granted to it by the Constitution in order to achieve those goals, then the act is illegitimate and must be struck down.
It would, however, be hilarious to see Obama's, Reid's and Pelosi's brazen flouting of the concept of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers come back to bite them. Hopefully the SCOTUS grows some balls, strikes down Obamacare, reins in the commerce clause, and then proceeds to overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases and reinvigorate the privileges or immunities clause when given the opportunity. One can dream.
If there were a Smallpox outbreak, would you be one of the whiners who would kill us all to ensure the constitution was respected?
I need to know before the outbreak. You know, for FYI purposes.
Does the Constitution say that you can't get your family and yourself vaccinated? If it doesn't how does respecting the Constitution kill you?
I'd love to hear the hilarious and assuredly entertaining story about how one would go about getting access to the smallpox vaccine, today, for themselves and their family.
Of course, if you weren't talking out of your ass, you'd know that currently a minimal stockpile of the vaccine is held mainly to inoculate people who are at risk for actually coming into contact with live Variola (so, like, a couple thousand worldwide), and outside that, there is no economic incentive to make more or test new vaccines. Hence, they don't exist on the open market and are not accessible.
But if the state violated the Constitution, the stockpiles would cease to be minimal! Their non-existence on the "open market" would be overshadowed by their existence in the back-pockets of government employees!
Thanks for not talking out of your ass.
There's a whole world of really stupid things out there that are both perfectly constitutional and completely stupid.
I'm not saying ObamaCare is constitutional, but I am saying that even if it is?
ObamaCare sucks.
@ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
all this stuff, BetaSell.com
So ... you're can see a smallpox outbreak that can only be contained by violating the Constitution. Interesting.
And what does this ink blot look like?
To his credit, he did compare Obamacare to smallpox.
I want to hear the far funnier story of how a smallpox outbreak is contained without violating the Constitution. That would be a hoot.
The government can protect us from ever feeling fear or pain. Praise be to the State, amen.
I'm no statist, jackass, but I have to wonder what other sort of structure would be able to mobilize with even minimal effectiveness against a catastrophic pandemic.
The fact that you can't even admit there are some extreme conditions under which your favored ideology won't operate at perfect efficiency makes you kind of a useful idiot, but that's another thing again.
Ha! The favored ideology can't deliver the non-existent vaccine, but state can. Jack Bauer can force the cows to make the vaccine NOW, dammit! Take the outbreak to CTU and put it in holding, you useful idiots you!
Are you implying that the only way that the government can operate is unconstitutionally? I simply said that where the government acts, it must do so within the bounds of the Constitution. Somehow you made the jump from Obamacare to Smallpox, and then made the further jump to indicate that the government cannot protect people against Smallpox without violating the Constitution. That goes far beyond the comment to which you initially replied.
One can dream.
Sorry, but congress just used their unlimited authority to say you can't dream.
Re: OO,
And it would be futile to attempt such a thing, especially since there's no such thing as an "employeer."
(Would that be like a privateer, I wonder?)
I can see the majority following the path in Raich that Scalia so thoughtfully provided. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot have some economic context such that regulation thereof (in a comprehensive scheme) is inescapable under the Commerce Clause. The Revolution has happened without a shot being fired.
But give it time. Soon enough the shots will begin.
"shots will begin"? ignorant considering the violent killings in this country exceed afghanistan.
Shooting you for fucking my dog isn't exactly The Revolution, part II.
what's she look like?
Furry and has a tail, but that's not enough to stop you, eh?
Not your mom, your DOG.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'll be here all week! Try the chicken fingers!
Afghanistan has 1/10th our population. What's your point?
I don't know - this may actually end up undermining the Commerce Clause.
If you think Ocare's unpopular now, wait 'till people actually have to start paying for it.
You silly goose, don't you get it? The secret to Obamacare is that somebody else pays for it. How can that not be popular?
No poor people on this here message board, no sirree!
Didn't you see the sign?
No entrance without monocle and top hat.
Seriously, poor people can have principles and know that it's wrong to forcefully take from other people. Oh, they might also be aware of the fact that government spending 50% of healthcare dollars has already screwed up the system to the point that we now have something as ridiculous as Ocare.
wait 'till people actually have to start paying for it.
Obamacare will either die in court or will die when the Democrats lose the senate and the presidency in the 2012 election.
Obamacare is unpopular and the republicans will run on getting rid of it.
Will 2013 be libertopia? Fuck no. A republican Senate and house and presidency will turn to shit just like the "W" years.
But that said Obamacare is dead. and it does not matter who or when people start paying for it.
I just thought of something the republicans could repeal most of obamacare but keep the mandated cuts to medicare.
Or even raise the spending a little. That way Democrats could not say Republicans were cutting medicare.
"What? we did not cut medicare the democrats did...we in fact raised medicare spending."
Team Red doesn't want to repeal it, they want to "improve" it.
This is because individuals would be fulfilling their own demand for wheat rather than resorting
to the market, which would thwart Congress's efforts to stabilize prices.
Those efforts would otherwise be successful, surely!
"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be."
We're already there. Congress's prohibition on personal possession of marijuana was deemed to be "interstate commerce" long ago.
If you overturn HCR based on the delegated powers clause, you should also overturn half of what Congress has done over the past 70 years, from obscenity laws to the drug war.
Amen.
Yes, please.
I'll buy that for a dollar!!!!
Which is why it won't happen, for better or for (mostly) worse. As much as we like to think and as much as judges themselves think that judges are beyond petty concerns like the practical fallout of their rulings, they are human beings and do care. No judge on the court is radical enough to undo fifty-odd years of regulatory behavior. None of them.
'Tis a shame. 50 years since Wickard v. Filburn and all the shitty building of laws on a foundation of rotten concrete. I needs to fall but none have the balls to knock it down so they prop it up and look the other way.
No judge on the court is radical enough to undo fifty-odd years of regulatory behavior. None of them.
What cowardly judges can't do government finance will...how long before the little green Skee-Ball tickets the fed prints are recognized to be confetti and none of this matters anymore?
They will legalize and tax reefer first.
No, seriously. They'd rather do that than dismantle the regulatory state.
They will legalize and tax reefer first.
Well there is now some precedent for compelling people to smoke now...."Stoners for deficit reduction"!
Sounds good to me.
It's not constitutional, but pro-government judges will work hard to find a way to say it is, anyway.
The mental gymnastics required of some of these rulings are truly astounding to me. Seriously. Truly astounding.
"I like my job and don't want anything fucking with my gravy train" isn't THAT astounding.
All sorts of things are unconstitutional. Don't worry about it.
It seems to me that's exactly what state cheerleaders keep saying. From my perspective, the deal where I let the government do some stuff in opposition to my liberty is written down in that Constitution thingee. If they aren't holding up their side of the agreement, why do I have to hold up mine?
Come on guys, on the ever frequent occasion that the Constitution is violated it's for the betterment of society and all the little people. It's not like anyone will use these precedents to do anything bad. Nothing in history would point to an abuse of power from a corrupted centralized authority. Sheesh, it's all rainbows and unicrons... for everyone!
Really. Nearly 250 years ago, our leaders knew enough history and knew enough about human nature to realize that imposing strict limits on government power was the only way to protect the people from tyranny.
Not one thing has happened in the intervening years to change that, and what has happened is little more than power grabs. We've been fortunate to expand some recognition of individual liberties over that time, but such recognition has expanded at the barest fraction of the rate that government power has.
If they aren't holding up their side of the agreement, why do I have to hold up mine?
Firepower.
You beat me to it.
Because you're a pussy.
Well, yes.
If there's no law for them, it follows that there's no law for you.
Just sayin'.
In Russia, economic activity regulates YOU!
Leaving home-grown and homeconsumed marijuana outside federal control would undercut Congress's broader
regulation of interstate economic activity
Oh, so Congress's attempt to broadly regulate marijuana is justified by the fact that not being able to regulate it will undercut Congress's ability to regulate it.
^^^ By George, I think he's got it!
I like how the judges missed that the expense of medical care is largely a function of state subsidies and barriers to increasing production.
Also WTF with deference to elected representatives? The whole point of a limited government is to prevent the majority from ripping off a minority. In a constitutional republic of enumerated powers, elected representatives should receive no deference on a question as to whether or not the state has authority to do something. Unless explicitly enumerated, the answer should be "No!"
But, the good news is that now Massachusetts has pushed one of its major disastrous policies out to other states, the economic hemmorage will probably slow down. You business owners outside the commonwealth will get to enjoy the increasing expense of employing people, especially the way lots of low skilled jobs just became more expensive than the marginal productivity of the workers they employ.
and just like with minimum wage, employers will be left with two options... 1) raise their prices, and 2) lay off employees.
Actually, the likely scenario is taking both options. So, we'll see prices increase across the board AND fewer people employed. Oh happy day!
And anyone who has to compete against companies outside the US will only have "option" number 2.
"I like how the judges missed that the expense of medical care is largely a function of state subsidies and barriers to increasing production."
I like how, in the name of "compassion," government requires behavior that culminates in government having to take over a sector of activity in order to reduce costs.
In health care, government required everyone to be admitted to emergency rooms, regardless of ability to pay, as a condition of participating in the Medicare program. This was deemed "compassionate." But it also established a class of "freeloaders," who, as overall system costs began to rise, could be the convenient scapegoats that justified ever greater government incursions into controlling health care.
In large part because the government established "must admit" rules and made them stick, people now clamor for the individual insurance mandate so that the people meant to benefit from "must carry" -- BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SHOULDER THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE PAYMENT LOAD -- must now, through required insurance, shoulder their fair share of the payment load. All well and good, but the mechanism for this "shouldering" is health insurance, which EVERYONE must now have. Let's not even get started on how the only reason health insurance is such a big deal these days is because government ALREADY made it the preferred -- almost exclusive! -- way to obtain health care, through legislation, years ago.
I like how, by nudging here, prodding there, and luring over there, the great American population mass is being driven into a seemingly predetermined situation, like a flock of turkeys destined for the Thanksgiving table.
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery
How masterfully Orwellian. Not buying insurance becomes "self-insurance".
I guess not buying milk becomes "self-production of vitamin D" and not buying a health club membership becomes "self-exercise".
If only the government would start to regulate our sex lives!
exactly what the wingnuts propose
Why would you object to this....you're for every other aspect of regulation proposed and implemented by the State.
You're a government pet .....nothing more....when they tire of you it's off to the pound like the useless Chihuahua you are.
wingnut
Fucknut!
Which is exactly why most of us are not republicans. Fuck off.
if your sex life has any effect whatsoever on the cost of health insurance, according to the 6th, it can be regulated. those are your rules, not mine.
"Yes, mam, my schlong is shaped like a boomerang and smells like potato peels left in a garbage bag out in the sun in August...but those are preexisting conditions."
Self-sexing is economic activity. The government should have the authority to tax/punish/fine you if you self-sex, but more importantly, they have the obligation to provide you with a prostitute to avoid the punishment.
is that what she said?
Please stop grunting your witticisms at your nurse and demanding she post them.
SHEEEEEE SAID!
If they are allowed to control medical decisions, they will not exempt sexual decisions from that control.
I guess not buying milk becomes "self-production of vitamin D"
Just FYI? The human body manufactures its own vitamin D if it spends time in the sunshine, Sunshine.
Everyone is going to climb stairs at some point in their lives, so the feds would be perfectly justified in forcing you to buy a stair climber.
If marijuana is legalized, can we all be forced by Congress to purchase it? By choosing not to purchase marijuana, people have a substantial effect on the market for marijuana, don't they?
Please go stand by the stairs. So I can protect you.
Why is everyone so worried? I'm confident that the republicans will sweep into office next year, and they'll repeal everything related to this monstrosity.
[trying to hold in laughter........]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They have no incentive to, really. What will the people do... vote them out of office by putting in another liberal Democrat to lay on us even more socialist programs?
No but they can primary the hell out of them. Bob Bennett and Mike Castle thougth the same thing. They thought wrong.
The Republican establishment hates the Tea Party more than the liberals do.
So, is it time to pursue some Second Amendment remedies?
JUST ASKING, in case some the pigs from the Secret Service (what an asinine, Orwellian name for an American government agency, by the way) are reading these comments.
FUCK THEM ALL!
and now the wingnut/militia connection rears its head....regarding insurance regs.
Regarding the validation of a interpretation of the Commerce Clause that basically waters down the limitations of government until it's basically the Constitutional equivalent of homeopathic medicine.
No, it's regarding [insert topic] that FOX News told you to get worked up about, in the service of the Republican Party.
The end.
Did Ed Schultz tell you to say that, Tony?
I'm capable of determining that mass hysteria over a good faith attempt to decrease the heathcare cost burden in this country is probably not the product of rational thought processes.
Good faith? They didn't struggle to pass it as quickly as possible because they thought it was going to help. Even if they didn't think it would make things worse, they're guilty of screwing everyone for the sake of "doing something".
How are you harmed by this law?
Tony:
Please step into my office, when you have a moment. We need to go over this shipwreck of a six-month review of yours.
My insurance has gone up by 40% this year.
Harder ED Harder! And don't forget that reach around that you promised!
I'm capable of determining that mass hysteria over a good faith attempt to decrease the heathcare cost burden in this country......
Awwww! You are just so cute when you're gullible like this!
Tony - dutifully repeating the generic anti-FOX news mantra while accusing others of carrying partisan water.
Aside from being a 2,700 page piece of shit, Obamacare is not just insurance regs. It contains the assertion that Obama and Congress can compel people to take engage in acts of commerce, despite there being zero constitutional authority to do so.
u mean like the employeer mandate?
The individual mandate is the most blatantly unconstitutional aspect, but there are plenty of other problems.
When the nut cutting comes, we will kill you mother fuckers. You are leaving us no choice. You nothing but a fucking mindless mob. There really isn't much point in reasoning with you is there?
The tea party is nothing but a fucking mindless mob, you twit. Why are they against healthcare reform? What stunning display of political and economic insight do they offer to oppose it? Glenn Beck told them so, fed talking points by GOP operatives in order to drive up GOP voters, end of story. That you guys think there is call for violent revolution because of a tepid change in healthcare regulations in this country is all the evidence needed to show you as easily excitable morons who watch too much right-wing TV.
There is no Tony. Never was. It's spoofs all the way down.
World's most tiresome troll. He is like a bad rock band on its fifth reunion tour after three of the original five membes have killed themselves on smack.
Close, but at least said rock band would have produced something of value, one decent song. It would be a big stretch to say Tony has ever produced anything of value.
Best description of the boring Tony. Ever.
Healthcare reform? Funny. The free market provides many things at lower cost than the gov't, and it can do the same with healthcare. But you refuse to see that. What does gov't make cheaper than the free market? People could afford to pay their doctors before the gov't got all involved in health care. You can look it up.
Wow! You left Tony speechless.
you and John should probably not use the "mob" metaphor.
Seriously that is Ann Coulter's thing in her new book Demonic.
Do you two want to sound like Ann Coulter?
Dear, did you remember to scoop out the cat's litter box for me, like you promised all last week...?
Obama will be re-elected before it really starts to hurt. I don't reckon he will give too much of a damn by then.
Don't worry there's a video of Barry and me slaughtering an inner-city 3 year old as a virgin sacrifice to Karl Marx that you haven't seen yet. I'll "leak" it in October 2012.
Please, please...YOU'RE WELCOME!!!!
lefties would still vote for him, because voting Red to them is worse than murdering children.
In fact, some would probably praise him for getting rid of a walking environmental disaster.
Oh, like Bush didn't sacrifice preschoolers too. Besides, the one Obama killed/ate was being a little bitch.
FREE HAT!!!
Obama will be re-elected
with 9.1% unemployment today and only an act of Jesus Christ himself will put it below 8% before nov of 2012....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAhahahahahahhahahahaa....
*wipes away tear.
You are funny.
Nah, Team Red will screw it up.
^This. I have no faith in them nominating at least a decent candidate. Look at how Gary Johnson has been left out of polls and a debate.
They're far more scared of Gary Johnson than they are of Obama.
That is just so fucking true, and sad.
If Gary Johnson or Ron Paul ever got to within a whiff of the nomination, their position on drug legalization would suddenly be explored by the mainstream media. And that would be curtains, especially in the GOP (but probably among Dems too).
What's amusing to me is to watch the people who were raving over HIPAA when it was just so much sausage in the Congressional entrails, and now are whining about the recently shot down Lieberman/Coburn proposal to cut Medicare by way of postponing eligibility. Listen, when your claimed savings comes from non-specific future cuts to Medicare but you then whinge about people actually cutting Medicare, you are a Hypocrite.
Anyone else notice how we stopped getting Constitutional amendments proposed about forty years ago? It's because they realized being unconstitutional was no longer a deal breaker. Sickening.
We've reached the point of maximum governmental entropy. They won't follow rules because it's not possible at this point to follow the rules because they contradict the language of the other rules that they can't follow either.
ok thats kinda funny
You're still a fucknut!
This is an excellent point. Why bother amending when you can just make shit up?
I wonder if the LP and fellow travelers shouldn't drop everything and focus entirely on getting a libertarian set of amendments to the Constitution ratified.
What the hell good would it do when the SCOTUS and the rest of the Feds can't be depended on to follow them honestly? Arguing with crooks and psychopathic liars is a waste of time.
Exactly. If they had to pass an amendment to collect income taxes how do they not have to pass an amendment to force people to buy private insurance?
It seems like the turning point was the 1960s when people tried to use the Constitution to defend racism while courts made ruling that may have ignored the Constitution but which are difficult not to celebrate.
Some would say that the turning point actually came a lot earlier when the Slaughterhouse Cases all but nullified the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment in 1873. Had that clause not been eviscerated by a cowardly Court, then proponents of liberty would not have had to look to the far weaker substantive due process arguments made in the Lochner era (which themselves were far more legitimate than modern scholars like to believe). Many of the worst abuses (including black codes and Jim Crow laws, among many other things) could have been attacked far sooner and far more effectively, removing the justification for massive federal involvement upon which many statists depend (RACISM!ll!!; CORPORATIONS!ll!!!; etc.).
COMMERCE CLAUSE SMASH!
Tell me, when the government raped you, did it wear a condom? Do you mind if I take an anal swab?
COMMERCE CLAUSE CHILD OF GOVERNMENT OF THE HILL PEOPLE. GOVERNMENT WISE AND BENEVOLENT PARENT. COMMERCE CLAUSE FULL OF SELF CONFIDENCE AND READY TO TAKE OVER FOR GOVERNMENT AND RULE THE HILL PEOPLE FOREVER!
(radios in): Yeah, I'm going to need a tox-kit. Yeah, it looks like he drugged her.
*scared and shaking*
Where did that tox-kit come from? Did you b-b-b-buy it?
*shrieks and points*
INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!
We know you are TSA and already know that answer.
Comrades!
Do not despair! 🙂
Government officials hate freedom because it limits their power. Entrenched interests fear it because their incomes and privileges are made insecure.
Elites disdain it because it permits people to ignore their enlightened edicts.
It has always been thus.
But, even as they seem to be triumphing, the forces of statism are crumbling. The people whose productive labor they wish to channel, direct, tap and loot can no longer support their appetites. The privileges and subsidies they grant to the people in order to gain acquiescence cost too much. Few honorable and capable men want anything to do with the state. The incompetents, crazies, and control freaks that have taken over are driving the honest, capable people away.
In the meantime, the state has lost control of the way people communicate. It can't suppress essays pointing out their bullshit the way they could in the 1930's. Technological development is slowly eliminating the scarcity that made various forms of collectivism attractive.
The future is ours, and the people pushing Obamacare/Romneycare are on the wrong side of history. Their current power is an ephemeral thing, in a few centuries their ideas will be gone, like many others before them.
I think you are right Terran. They are about to go broke. When the repo man comes, all hell will break lose. They know that. That is the reason why they and their supporters have turned into such an ugly mindless mob.
I think you are right Terran.
John's Klingon roots are finally outed.
Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Rational basis. What a fucked up standard. We should've started with strict scrutiny for evaluating the legality of any government action, rather than this assumption that everything is fine. Because it fucking isn't.
That one's going in the Bill of Rights Part II.
In other words, the end justifies the means?
A six-year-old could tell you the government can't tell you to buy something you don't want.
What is it about getting a law degree that makes supposedly bright adults turn dumber than a six-year-old?
What is it about getting a law degree that makes supposedly bright adults turn dumber than a six-year-old?
THE PROMISE OF POWER IN THE FUTURE. You can't think that these fucks don't know what they're shoveling!
A six-year-old could tell you the government can't tell you to buy something you don't want.
Who cares what the powerless think? These same six-year-olds are forced to go to school even though most don't want to.
A law degree makes some people think too much (and I have a JD so I've been there). Judges feel like they have to pettifog every little detail of what may be a simple question. Thus we have judges saying that growing pot in your yard and smoking it up is interstate commerce, and that taking someone's home and giving the property to a private developer is a public purpose, etc.
It's all about confirming government actions.
^This - because those actions preserve the power of the bureaucracy.
Go to a government court to contest government power - whose favor did you think they would decide in?
It's related to the process where getting a PhD makes you incapable of saying, "I don't know."
+1
"Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential"
oh so as long as Congress has a reason that they deem 'rational' they can do whatever they please, okay i get it, wait no I don't.
Rationalism is the enemy of reason.
Could these judges not find a "Constitutional" rather than a 'rational' reason, you know, like fucking federal judges are paid to do.
Anyone,have a constitutional basis for giving Congress unlimited authority to govern the (non)actions of every citizen? Anybody? No?
Butters,
You said it better than anybody.
Prepare to be arrested and sent to the Siberian worker camps, you filthy Capitalist pig!!!!
The rational basis test is idiotic. Basically the laws neither need to be rational nor do they need to have a basis to meet the test.
"They can torture me, they can break my legs. Yes, they can even kill me. Then they will have my dead body. But they will not have my obedience."
-Ghandi
Ghandi never got waterboarded.
As the states find out that Obamacare is impossible to implement and the federal government is out of money to fund this pig, it's going to be reformed dramatically. A one payer system will never happen because Obamacare will be seen as a government failure,
so pushing for a total government plan just won't fly. Since Obama's economic policies keep screwing up the economy and the Democrats don't care about the deficit, market-oriented reforms will be the only way to save Obamacare and Medicare.
Since when has any monumental government failure ended with less government involvement? No, it will be seen as a failure only because not enough regulation has happened. So, to remedy the mistake, they will pile on more regulation and lead us towards a one-payer system.
You are right Matrix that has never happened before. But the government has never gone broke before. They have run out of money so they can't fun more government involvement.
I agree with your theory, but not with the results. This will end with Dems screaming for Single-Payer. They will make the minimum health care package for the individual mandate so expensive and cumbersome for insurance companies that they'll have no alternative but to raise their rates. All those rate hikes are now reviewed by HHS, so of course they'll paint the rate hikes as gratuitous profiteering by the insurance companies and rile up the populist sentiment and once everyone's in a tizzy about how evil and awful all those insurance companies (who climbed all over themselves to get in on the back room deal for Ocare in the first place)are for raising their rates to meet the burden of Ocare. They'll have every op-ed in the freakin world save for maybe WSJ, screaming for Single-payer and eventually every NYT and NPR ditto head will be shouting how racist we all are for opposing single-payer and Tony will be posting about how it's all just a 'good-will, honest injun effort' to control costs by requiring that basic healthcare plans be more expensive, which through 'lib-mental gymnastics' will make total sense to all of them and the libertarians real motive is to watch poor people to die in the streets, etc, etc, etc and on and on and on....holy shit I just depressed myself...
I just had an orgasm. Thank you!
teh wing nut reer there ugly heads in thees thrads pls take youre milisha propganda some where esle
Oh shit, the bastard raped another one.
You tawk funny...who's dick is in your mouth?
u mean my estalker's mouth w someone's meat torpedo
estalker? Nothing that grandiose....I just felt like picking on the dumbest apologist for statism (since Tony) and kicking him around like the loser fucknut he is for awhile! It's a stress reliever!
My moms!
You're more than welcome to leave, asscunt.
CNN is reporting that the individual mandate only requires that "most" American buy health insurance.
Bullshit, then who are the "some" Americans who don't have to and I the fuck do I join their ranks?
Join the Amish. Of course you would have to pay a tax that's nominally the same price as the insurance.
Believe it or not, the Amish are exempt from FICA/self employment tax and have been so since the New Deal.
You could get a waiver, if you know the right people.
Yes, this is a funny aspect of the law. It exempts the very poor. The same people who are most likely to freeride off of emergency room care.
"Bullshit, then who are the "some" Americans who don't have to and I the fuck do I join their ranks?"
Join a labor union.
A one payer system will never happen because Obamacare will be seen as a government failure
If only this were true.
Unfortunately, the political philosophers at such illustrious think tanks as Time Magazine and The Nation will all cry, "You're just not hitting it hard enough!"
the fuck do I join their ranks?
I suspect it has something to do with winning an election.
Where do we get in line to buy the government-mandated telescreens that Congress has a rational basis to require us to buy so that we can be sure to see advertisements that are beamed over state lines. Because if we don't watch the advertisements we might just buy whatever is available locally and are thus affecting interstate commerce. Right?
And your existing television doesn't actually count because it doesn't have two-way capability and Congress wants them all to have two-capability and guess what bitches, you have to buy one because Congress has the power to tell you to buy one and if you don't have the money one will be provided for free... of course, the free ones only work in one direction and its not the direction that you would prefer, but so what? I'm sure Congress can come up with a rational basis for that.
CONGRESS PWNS ALL OF US BITCHES NOW!!!
If Anthony Kennedy believes what he wrote in the majority decision in the Bond case last week, we may have hope. His strong defense of federalism may indicate he won't vote to affirm the 6th circuit decision.
Don't hold you breath. All of them have a vested interest in broadening federal power. Sure, some (perhaps all?) of them can tell that this law should be overturned, but they also of the foresight to realize that when their favorite nanny-state program comes down the pike that they'll be affirming the same broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the Obama administration is using.
Well, this is a side case, not one of the main two cases, in Virginia and Florida, working their way up the ladder.
The Florida case may be the one most likely to survive up to SCOTUS level.
I certainly hope it does get struck down, and not just because I dislike the mandate. If Congress can impost duties to act upon the people, merely because it suits how they want to regulate some aspect of the economy, then we no longer have a government of limited and enumerated powers.
I'm pretty sure that the government of limited and enumerated powers is simply a facade to keep us cowed. They walk that tight rope not because of the constitution, but because it's easier than facing the wrath of the people. Full take-over takes time.
I'm waiting for SCOTUS. All other decisions are a waster of bits and bytes
I love how the justification for ObamaCare was essentially "All the cool, broke-ass countries have it."
The bad news is we'll end up with fewer health care providers because it's going to be a less lucrative occupation.
The good news is eventually they'll lower the standards so that lots of people will be able to provide health care. Your iPhone will be able to take xrays and you can instantly upload them to a health care provider.
The bad news is you'll be getting health care at the Apple Store.
Let's not put x-ray machines next to my solid state hard-drive with all my media on it. Thanks.
your media?
Well, no. In Massachusetts, even Apple is not taking patients anymore.
I like how they are being weasels and calling the act of paying for your own damn doctor "self-insurance".
I guess I am "self-insuring" my grocery bill and light bill, too. I have Grocery Self-Insurance and Electricity Self-Insurance.
There is no level of dishonesty to which these cunts won't sink.
I guarantee you that becomes a talking point, too. "When you refrain from buying health insurance, you are entering the self-insurance market and that's interstate commerce!"
Oops, Tulpa beat me to it!
Hat tip to Tulpa.
Dude, when government starts being that weasely...and for fuck's sake, that's pretty fucking weasel-like...I start wondering why I care so fucking much.
It's uber weasel. The medical industry hardly even calls it 'self-insured'. Often, they're called 'self-pay' patients.
I guess I am "self-insuring" my grocery bill and light bill, too. I have Grocery Self-Insurance and Electricity Self-Insurance.
I am waiting for them to call eating, drinking fluids,, breathing, and walking "self insured preventative health care"
Would it be racist to imagine Obama jumping up on stage about now singing Bobby Brown's, My Prerogative?
So long as he's wearing an African medallion and your dream is directed by Spike Lee.
If he casts Rosie Perez in it, I'm ok with that.
I would rather he sing Frank Zappa's Bobby Brown
FTMFW!
My car is fast, my teeth are shiney...
I hate dissents that chicken-out by writing in the form of a question.
If the justice dissents, then write the dissent in a goddammned clear and emphatic statement. Writing in the form of a question makes you look unsure, which is why you got outnumbered.
Those evil self-insurers are failing to subsidize the health insurance market.
EXTERNALITY
Why 6th Circuit ruling upholding ind mandate is not a total disaster http://northernvirginialawyer......holds.html
While interesting questions, I fail to see what they have to do with the dispute at hand. I didn't realize we had a "federalism" or "small government" test for every law. I don't recall the constitution requiring a small government.
"I don't recall the constitution requiring a small government."
Since you are illiterate Tony, that doesn't surprise me. To those of us who can read, it does require that very thing.
Where?
It's supposed to be a government of limited and enumerated powers. Only what is actually, specifically, written down, is supposed to be within it's power.
Is the Commerce Clause not written down?
If it is written down, does it have fine print that says "we can do whatever the fuck we want based on this law"?
Take it up with the supreme court.
Constitutional objections are just a smokescreen anyway. Even if the SC determines Obamacare to be totally constitutional, you won't believe them.
Anything to distract from the fact that you don't have any policy solutions for decreasing healthcare costs and increasing its availability. Why can't you guys ever argue a policy on its own merits, rather than hiding behind a constitutional interpretation that happens to favor only what you like?
Okay. Obamacare is shitty on the merits, because it will do nothing to increase availability of actual health care nor will it bring the price of health care down.
If you honestly believe it will, point to the actual mechanism in the legislation and explain how it's going to work to accomplish either goal.
What if the SCOTUS determines Ocare to be unconstitutional, 5-4. Would you then admit that it is unconstitutional?
There are plenty of Libertarian suggestions for lowering the cost of delivering health care. Some have been mentioned in articles on this very website. Would you like links? I'm sure folks around here can provide them.
If the SCOTUS determines a law unconstitutional, it is by definition unconstitutional. There isn't a higher authority to appeal to, not even the voices in your head. I can disagree with a court decision all I want, but they get to decide the fact of constitutionality.
The only policy solutions for healthcare I've heard from libertarians is a bunch of hand-waving promises about free market magic, but I'm willing to learn.
Just google "Libertarian health care proposal" and start reading. All the solutions involve deregulation and the ending of subsidies, two things that drive up costs more than anything else.
And I don't want to hear any crap about poor people dying in the streets...
Yeah they are the ones brushed aside by the hand-waving I was referring to. I suspect any libertarian proposal goes in assuming a society completely filled with adults in the prime of their life, as most libertarian policies do.
You see what he's doing? Any libertarian policy, no matter how much it's backed by economic theory and sociological insight, will be swept aside under the auspices of it being "hand-waving". This is done because he is the only poster on this board to consistently lose every single debate on economics he's ever engaged in.
The one time he sort of won was when someone misread the Lauffer curve as it saying that decreasing taxes always increases revenue, which Tony chose to hone in on as an example of our collective scientific illiteracy.
The whole point in suggesting market-based solutions to problems is that no single person or even a small group of people can effectively manage such a massive system. The fact that people like you and Obama ask for step-by-step government sanctioned solutions just shows how dramatically you misunderstand the problem with central planning. Nobody (including Obama, Pelosi and Reid) knows precisely how the problem will be solved, but I would certainly rather have millions of people seeking alternative solutions than having a narrow majority of the bought-and-paid-for nitwits in DC dictate precisely how they think the problem should be solved.
They pull the same bullshit with energy policy. Many "green" sources of energy are subsidized 100 times as much as oil (per unit of energy produced), and yet we keep throwing money at oil and green energy both. Frankly, oil doesn't need the subsidy, and diverting money towards preferred "green" solutions prevents the marketplace from dictating where it thinks the best solutions will be found. The subsidies just prevent market forces from operating properly.
In Japan's heyday it heavily subsidized what it believed to be "winning" industries like the manufacturing of airplanes and other large consumer goods. Ironically and completely baffling to government central planners, industries like consumer electronics and automobiles which had been completely ignored flourished and ended up becoming the focal point for Japan's economy.
The lesson? Though "scientific management" of the economy may sound sophisticated and superior to the "chaos" of free market capitalism, it is willful ignorance to think that a panel of bureaucrats can predict consumer wants and needs.
No, I wouldn't believe them... because it ISN'T Constitutional.
You said :
Even if the mandate is found to be constitutional, the court must still find that the commerce clause is bounded by some sort of limit.
In other words, there IS in fact a constitutional. federalism, small government litmus test. It is well established in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Right next to the place it defines this as a Christian country?
Wow, it must really be hard going through life as a halfwit. Seriously Tony, I sometimes feel sorry for you. Hazel answered your question above. But since you can't read, I am sure you don't understand it.
Says the half-wit who can't answer a simple question.
Real nice mouth you've got here, Tony. Love what you've done with it.
I think it safe to assume that Tony is the product of two half wits which would make him a quarter wit. One more generation of imbeciles and his line can be sterilized.
It doesn't require a "small" government, what the constitution spells out is a government of "limited power". It's the latter you seem to be uncomfortable with.
That power is limited, among other things, to regulating interstate commerce, which indisputably this law entails.
Since when is forcing someone to participate in an activity regulation of that activity? It is, in fact, regulation of the person. Congress does not have the power to regulate people.
It's indisputable, Paul. Indisputable. Now go sit in the corner.
If I take a shit in the woods... is that interstate commerce-related, Tony?
Apparently so.
Either that or it will flow into navigable waters.
STEVE SMITH HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OVER ALL ANAL-RELATED WILDERNESS "COMMERCE."
Remind me not to shit in the woods.
That power is limited, among other things, to regulating interstate commerce, which indisputably this law entails.
That's a bit like saying, "That power is limited, to making you do anything we want."
I don't think the word "limited" means what you think it means.
Hmmm... So by the logic laid out in majority opinion above the government can make me buy or punish me for not buying any given product... and yes health insurance is a product just like any other. The only difference is that the majority of the population has not ever paid directly for this particular product.
Frankly, I am not sure why I am wasting my breath, if you cannot see the possible negative unintended consequences of a further watering down of individual choices and expansion of government power, I am not sure what to say.
That power is limited, among other things, to regulating interstate commerce, which indisputably this law entails.
Oh, but it is very disputable - that's why there are and will be lawsuits disputing it.
But if "regulating interstate commerce" encompasses nearly every human activity, can that power be said to be limited?
You seem incapable of distinguishing between Obamacare as a statute and the individual mandate contained within the statute. The statute addresses an industry that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce, and that industry can be regulated because its participants are actively participating in that market. The Federal Government, however, does not have the power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause - which is exactly what the individual mandate seeks to do. Even in the government's own briefs, their attorneys were forced to cite cases that mentioned ACTIVITIES. Not buying a product is not an activity.
The dissenting judge never used the words "small government." When many of us use these words we typically mean government with limited, enumerated powers. In that sense, the Constitution directly establishes that the federal government should be "small."
But aren't you glad that the system has determined otherwise... would be a shame if we had to dismantle our government and start over because it was too limited to deal with the modern world.
start over because it was too limited to deal with the modern world.
You always come ever so close to verbally tearing up the constitution.
Liberals, you've come a long way, baby.
I don't see any reason why adhering to the Constitution would prevent the federal government from "dealing" with the modern world. Please give some examples.
Besides, the Constitution provides a means of modifying itself, if needed.
To my mind the constitution is probably failing at dealing with the modern world as it is, but for such an old document it's pretty resilient. It's not like the filibuster is in the constitution, after all.
But the plain fact that we haven't been able to deal with certain major problems is evidence by itself that our system may be a failure.
What major problems haven't we dealt with? Last time I checked our quality of living was higher than ever before and still on the rise.
The filibuster is in the Senate rules. They can get rid of it whenever they want. If you want you could try to pass a Constitutional amendment that eliminates the filibuster...
Last I checked we are bogged down in a perfectly solvable economic shithole, are still addicted to foreign fossil fuels for energy, still have the highest healthcare costs in the world, draconian drug laws, the most brutal criminal justice system in the first world, and a government almost totally corrupted by moneyed interests, and those are just off the top of my head.
Most of the problems you list would be fixed if the federal government would live within the bounds laid out in the Constitution. The problem is that we individuals don't have the guts to vote for liberty over percieved security.
What are you arguing for again? More or less power for the federal government?
I'm arguing for ending the stupid conversation and moving on to a real one. What policy will clean up the environment? What policy will fix the economy? Those questions are what matter. "How much power should the federal government have?" doesn't. The federal government should have what power it needs to accomplish the people's goals in its jurisdiction. We have all the evidence in the world that only a national single-payer system works most cheaply for healthcare delivery. If the constitution forbids it, then the constitution is flawed and should be changed. And I fail to see how removing power from the federal government will solve any of the problems I mentioned, which are all on the national scale.
"How much power should the federal government have?" doesn't. The federal government should have what power it needs
I just came. In my own mouth.
There is already a mechanism for changing the Constitution.
And fucktard Tony will just handwave away any citizens who are ground up in the name of "the people's goals."
The federal government should have what power it needs to accomplish the people's goals in its jurisdiction.
Finally, someone who understands my needs!
Only two countries on this planet have single-payer healthcare, Cuba and North Korea.
These three problems, which you brought up, are explicitly caused by government having excess power over individuals. These problems would clearly be solved by the government losing some of that power.
The other problems you mentioned could be reduced through "free market hand-waving magic", as you like to call it.
None of those other problems could actually be solved by any amount of government power.
Actually many people would argue that dependence on foreign oil, being the cheapest source of mobile energy, is a feature, not a bug.
Agreed. Nobody is forcing us to buy foreign oil. We choose to buy foreign oil because it is by far the most cost-effective source of energy, and because we don't allow the use of many of our domestic sources. Our energy mix will change as technologies evolve and the relative prices of different sources change. That is, unless the government diverts resources from economically productive ones to politically favored ones, in which case we will be locked into suboptimal solutions for much longer.
But the plain fact that we haven't been able to deal with certain major problems is evidence by itself that our system may be a failure.
In fairness, George Bush was all over that. For instance, the founders never predicted things like encrypted electronic communication and cell phones. Bush did a lot to make sure modern law enforcement had access to that. Pesky constitution no more!
The Obama administration has a private interpretation of that law.
There should be such a test for every law.
Because blind devotion to a fringe minarchist philosophy trumps democratic will.
We're a Republic, not a democracy. Democratic will means nothing. Back in the day you would be called a Tory. And we would tar and feather you.
Public will means nothing? Why do we have elections then?
You don't think it makes sense that, except in certain extraordinary circumstances, people ought to have the policies they want? Or should everyone be subjects of a benevolent libertarian dictatorship?
Democratic will does not trump the individual's rights.
Depends on what you're claiming as a right. Even free speech is subject to abolition if enough of a supermajority decides to do it. Rule by the people is supposed to be just that... nothing can be higher or more sacred than that, not even your precious fringe ideology.
Rule by the people is supposed to be just that... nothing can be higher or more sacred than that
Bullshit. Democracy is not a end goal. The end goal is the protection of the individual and their rights. That's what the whole game is about, not the process. Democracy (and its Republican variant) is simply the least worst process.
Rule by the people is supposed to be just that... nothing can be higher or more sacred than that, not even your precious fringe ideology.
This so demands a godwin. Fighting the temptation...
Anything emanating from property.
Except it can't. A North Korean still has the "right" to free speech because he or she has exclusive control and thus ownership over his or her own body. One still has the power to easily say, "Down with Kim Jong-il!", it's just that you'd be punished for doing so.
The liberal paradox; the commoner is simultaneously a blithering idiot incapable of doing what's best for himself without the assistance of government, and yet at the same time has the benevolence and intelligence to make an informed vote.
To make it personal for you: if the majority could have every policy they wanted, it would have been perfectly legal to beat homos to death with sticks for most of the country's existence. That's why the majority doesn't get every policy it wants, dumbass.
This is a dumb conversation I'm tired of having. I have never said that all governing should be done by simple majorities. I am not in favor of referendum legislation. When I say democratic will I am referring to the preferences of the people as opposed to the autocratic impulses displayed by many here who are so convinced that their policies are the right ones that they don't think they need to consult public will about it before imposing them. It's for their own good, after all.
So if the preference of the people was to take all your stuff, rape you, and piss on you, it would be ok, right? Majority rules and all.
You have to be really stupid not to get that I believe that a law can be legitimate while still being a bad law.
You crybabies just want to pretend that only your policy preferences are legitimate.
"Letting individuals decide for themselves" is not the same as "imposing."
Now it makes sense.
So the will of the people should always be respected except when it conflicts with a specific liberal policy proposal. Gotcha.
Can you name me one even vaguely libertarian policy that has been "imposed" in post-Coolidge America?
Nobody on here is a utilitarian except MNG, and you're not debating him.
Wrong again. The vast majority of people on here don't want the government "imposing" policies on anybody. That is your bag. We would rather that the government's primary job should be to protect the rights of the people, not to treat them like pets or wards of the state.
Lynch mobs are democracies.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble remembering...when Scott Brown (R) was elected because he promised a 'No' vote on this Bill, in the BLUEST STATE IN THE FUCKING COUNTRY... what happened again? O yea, the Libs told us that the special election was not a referendum on ObamaCare and rammed it through back-room grab your ankles style. Despite the fact that Brown's entire goddamn campaign centered on a truck and that NO VOTE, AND the fact that he was elected to a seat previously held by a progressive champion of univeral health care... so...I guess it's really about when YOUR policies are validated that elections matter..
I think Congress can attempt to pass whatever laws it chooses regardless of what the national media say is the message of a single special election.
Actually, believe it or not, it was Scott Brown who said he would vote 'No' on Obamabcare. I'm pretty sure he didn't get the idea to run on that from the National Media telling him 'Hey, you know what you should do? Take the most polar opposite position from democrats in the most democratic state in the Union and make it the cornerstone of your campaign'
But I'm not shocked that a NYT slurper like yourself thinks the tail wags the dog.
"Public will" doesn't exist; neither does the "common good". We're retreading philosophical ground now.
Your question should be rephrased as, "Why do we have elections to the extent that we do?". The framers wrote the Constitution precisely to restrict the common man's voice in his government; the only democratically-elected chamber on the national level was the House of Representatives. They viewed the much more democratic Articles of Confederation rightly as an abomination which resulted in mob rule and in-fighting between the states. The Constitution was meant to drastically limit democracy, not expand it.
I wouldn't mind having the Senate chosen by state legislatures or further removing the Electoral College from the "will of the people".
Society cannot function if everything is up to popular vote. Capitalism relies on individuals being "dictators" of their own property, and this can't happen under a democracy.
Many libertarians, among them Rothbard and Hoppe, have held that the hypothetical "liberal dictator" or "liberal king" would be far superior to our current system of government. I agree with that sentiment.
Not quite: Hoppe pointed out that hereditary monarchs tend to loot their subjects less than representative governments ceteris paribus.
So, Germany has a representative government, and Austria has a monarch. Culturally, technologically, and economically the countries are very simmilar. Hoppe's analysis of various data showed that the taxes would be lower in the monarchy, laws more stable, wars less destructive, and private property more repsected.
However, Rothbard - and I vaguely remember Hoppe agreeeing with this in a lecture I listened to - pointed out that the enlightened monarch is more a myth than fact; that the French philosophers who sought to educate kings into running their kingdoms among classical liberal lines to a man all failed; the kings benefitted so much from their power to grant monopolies and rents that no philosopher could convince one to stay his hand.
So, monarchs are aweful people who loot and pillage their subjects. But, democracies do that too. Democracies at their worst are nowhere near as bad as the worst monarch. However, on average, monarchs tend to think more long term than the officers of a representative government, and thus tend to keep their looting at sustainable levels, whereas the politician grabs what loot he can in his time in office and does not worry about the long term.
I'd vote for you if you promise to tar and feather all the people who love Democracy.
Back in the day you would be called a Tory. And we would tar and feather you.
Say! That ain't no bad notion, Concerned Citizen - I mean the part about tarring and feathering.
Well hell, then Jim Crow should be good to go, the democratic will made it so.
Really Tony or Faux Tony, that was too easy.
Jim Crow had the effect of removing an entire class of people from democracy.
Besides, it's a tired, stupid argument. What are you favoring exactly? That people's will not be respected by government?
And by "people's will", what the hell do you mean? You're proving Ann Coulter right, that liberals function by mob mentality. Emotion over reason.
Ann Coulter, arbiter of reason. You know damn good and well what I mean. Certain policies affect certain populations. If those affected don't have a democratic say in the matter, they are not free in the most basic sense.
But it was decided on by democratically elected representatives. Not favoring anything just following the logic train you put in motion.
So what? Lots of bad laws get passed legitimately. You guys just want to pretend that only your policy preferences are legitimate, and everyone else is doing something illegal. It's a childish approach to policy discussions.
Correction, I am favoring a document with amendments and such that limits the ability of government to trample on the rights of individuals. I think we had one of those at one time, not sure what happened to it.
"Besides, it's a tired, stupid argument. What are you favoring exactly? That people's will not be respected by government?"
Are you Obama's speechwriter? Cause that is one hell of a fearmongering false choice! The government is restricted to the powers granted to it explicitly in the Constitution. Within those boundaries, it should respect the will of the people. We elect representatives, not overlords.
Actually, it does.
I hear tell some new gay marriage legislation went through, despite majorities in all most every state being opposed, including Obama.
Constitutional government, how does it work?
What about majorities in the state where it was passed?
I am not defending law-by-referendum. I like representative democracy. Obviously tyranny of the majority is a threat. What is unacceptable is rule-by-sacred-text. In the end, no matter how strict the supermajorities required, nothing can trump democratic will. That's kind of the founding philosophy of our country.
You do realize the text isn't sacred, as there is a process for amending it?
And a process for interpreting it. IT doesn't mean whatever you say it means, it means what the courts say it means.
I am not defending law-by-referendum. I like representative democracy. Obviously tyranny of the majority is a threat.
Except when you don't. Constitutional government protects us from the whims of even those representatives. It specifies they may "pass no law" or certain rights "shall not be infringed".
You may not like the current consitution, Tony, and that's fair. There's a democratic process to change it.
And there's a judicial process to determine the constitutionality of laws.
Re: Tony,
The judiciary is NOT supposed to be used as the quality control agent, dumbass. Laws have to be BORN constitutional, as the lawmakers swore to uphold the Constitution.
And who decides whether they are unconstitutional at the outset? You? There are disagreements on this matter, you know.
Re: Tony,
No! The very people that SWORE to uphold the Constitution! That's why they VOTE on them; that's why the president can VETO them. Just because the current Congress is populated by autoritarian demagogues does not change this.
You're certainly the poster child for the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem. You're a clear result of it.
Welcome back, Old Mexican. It's been hard to stem the tide of idiocy without you here, though I caught you commenting here and there on the Mises Institute.
Re: Tony,
I don't recall, either, as the Constitution is not a being that requires anything. If what you mean is that the Constitution states enumerated limits on government, then YES, it does, regardless of the fact that nobody in the government (the bunch that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution) cares at all.
That's the constitution they swore to uphold, not Old Mexican's minarchist interpretation of it. People disagree on what the constitution permits, which is why there is judicial review. What other process would you prefer? Maybe they should just run every law by you?
Re: Tony,
Seems like you still have a penchant for misunderstanding concepts, Tony. The Constitution is written in plain English, so there's NO interpretation: it IS what it is.
Correction: YOU disagree with what the Constitution does NOT allow. Different concept.
There's NO judicial review, dumbass - gee, don't you even *know* how your own government works? Somebody has to bring SUIT to the courts and show DAMAGES before a law is considered Constitutional. It is not like the judiciary is populated by a bunch of quality control bots looking at sausage-laws. States don't even have to bring suit against a law to the courts, they can simply nullify them.
You really aren't making sense. It mat be written in plain English, but you don't think there are legitimate areas of dispute? What does "cruel and unusual" mean, precisely? You are being absurd.
Tony, I'll give you this one. The Constitution was written in plain language. It's meaning is clear, but irrelevant if the political class chooses to ignore it. The problem is that a majority of voters have decided they prefer perceived security over actual liberty. Unfortunately, those who choose liberty must live under this tyranny of the masses.
I think we should be careful. All this commenting is having a substantial effect on commerce in the aggregate.
It drives ad revenue. So it's Constitutional to make everyone comment on every ad-supported board in the country.
It's worse, you can now be required to click on every ad, and buy something from some percentage of those advertisers... what percentage will be decided by the next Congress.
It's even worse than that. You can now be required to purchase a computer and internet service so that you can surf the web 2 hours per day (also mandated) clicking on ads and buying stuff.
The Kochtopi are more clever than we thought.
This is BRILLIANT.
I guess Reason can replace that AARP Medicare Supplement ad; that shit's all free now.
Why would anyone have a problem with this, unless... you're a Christ-fag!
We're the Christie Fags! Yaaaaay for Governor Christie!
Oh - CHRIST FAGS? Sorry.
Can we join in?
You didn't have to be a lawyer or a psychic to know that's exactly how they'd rule. The Commerce Clause for all intents and purposes really doesn't have any limits.
We're treading on shaky ground here, as it is being insinuated that the government can regulate what it mandated because what it mandates has an effect on I.C. This is circular thinking.
This is an obvious lie, as the Commerce Clause does not state this at all.
Justice Scalia on Judge Sutton: "one of the very best law clerks I ever had."
I'm a simple man, but if the courts rule that Obamacare is constitutional, how can there be wavers? How can certain groups operate outside the constitution?
Well, there's the Congress. And the administration. The courts. State governments. Local governments.
Frankly, there are a lot of people operating outside the Constitution right now, so what's the problem adding a few more?
I'm a simple man, but if the courts rule that Obamacare is constitutional, how can there be wavers?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- The primary role of the government is to hand out favors. If they remove the waver option, the government has crippled its ability to hand out favors.
Governments hate equality under the law.
You crybabies just want to pretend that only your policy preferences are legitimate... You guys just want to pretend that only your policy preferences are legitimate, and everyone else is doing something illegal. It's a childish approach to policy discussions. ... Why can't you guys ever argue a policy on its own merits, rather than hiding behind a constitutional interpretation that happens to favor only what you like? ... You guys just want to pretend that only your policy preferences are legitimate...
Say some more stupid shit, Tony.
I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for
$94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fed3x. I will never again pay expensive r3tailprices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to
my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website
we using to get all thisstuff,b?zzsave. c0m......