Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

[Avatar4321]

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

Alright, for the sake of argument let's except your premise. Regulating healthcare is still outside the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

Especially with the courts more recent commerce clause decisions which restore the limited powers it grants.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

of course they have the right to regulate it. but even if they didn't have the right to do so under the commerce clause, they have the right to do so under the general welfare clause, which has been interpreted fairly broadly.

and you and i may not pretend to be constitutional scholars... but the pretend constitutionalists do.

isn't that funny?

The general welfare clause isn't a grant of power to the Federal government. The Courts have ruled on this multiple times.

 

[Oddball]

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

So I'm supposed to stand up and clap...or better yet give in...because you can identify a rhetorical device? OMG, I'm quaking. (BTW, no crickets there...I went to lunch )

As far as defending the Commerce Clause to you, that's been done all over these forums. It's pretty ridiculous how these threads all devolve back into the same arguments over and over again with no progress. You're not going to concede even one point...despite the fact that I've made the major concession that the current interpretation is a power grab.

So there you go...I'll pat myself on the back for being the better man...you can pat yourself on the back for the faux "win" should you care to. The funny thing is...should the court change gears on its interpretation...that's what I'm interested in...the court maintaining the constitution and not breaking stare decisis. I'm in favor of the healthcare law, but not if it's unconstitutional.

Uh-huh....Definitely baffling with bullshit.

If that's all you got...sounds like I wasted some effort on you. No worries. Easy mistake to correct.

I have a 1st Amendment case based on Connick vs. Meyers in my case load currently. That's not to grand stand...anyone can have an opinion, but simply to communicate to anyone reading my personal posts that I've spent time grappling with these issues in real life. Should you want to give me credibility...that's up to you.

Most people's minds are already made up on these boards anyway.

Why waste effort on someone who hedges his political positions eight ways from Sunday?

You're not grappling....You're waffling, fudging, equivocating, vacillating, wheedling, selling out and copping out.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you're a republican.

 

[antagon]

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

of course they have the right to regulate it. but even if they didn't have the right to do so under the commerce clause, they have the right to do so under the general welfare clause, which has been interpreted fairly broadly.

and you and i may not pretend to be constitutional scholars... but the pretend constitutionalists do.

isn't that funny?

Who is pretending. We are asking a question, no one is honestly answering. Where in the Constituiton does it say the government can force you to buy something? Anything? Especially insurance?

All I am getting is a lot of BS like "well the experts say so."

But "general welfare" isn't a clause in the Constitution. It's a phrase in the Preamble. And interstate commerce doesn't cover unfunded mandates by the government to buy insurance.

I am still waiting for anyone to prove otherwise.

c'mon, man.

the general welfare statement is in the tax/spend clause that opens section 8.

apart from that, the general welfare and commerce clauses shelter the industrial regulations in the bill, whereas the tax/spend and 16th shelter the additional rate of tax for individuals without coverage.

your premise that the government is forcing you to buy insurance is what requires proof, and what makes your question hypothetical.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, dickweed.

James Madison explained, in explicit detail, what he meant and didn't mean concerning the general welfare clause, in Federalist #41

 

[Xenophon]

Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution - Big Journalism

Here is the money quote that tells it all:

YouTube - Phil Hare doesn't care.


What gets me is his cowardice when he is confronted with his lying. He takes the out of all outrageous liars. We have all met them. They tell ridiculous lies but demand we all believe them implicitly. When you "dare" not to believe them, they become outraged. (Bill Clinton springs to mind, in that category).

So, he just trounces out because he knows he can't defend his outrageous lie, but he is still furious, they didn't believe it.

"Do you KNOW what I do for a living? Peasant! How DARE you question me on the bill!"

They really nailed him on this video. I love it.

We need to get every one of those louses that voted for the bill on video, just like this and put them on the internet for everyone to see and remember for election time.

November 2 is coming people, and I can't wait!

As if we needed him to state what has been obvious for some time.

The big government stooges ignore the Constitution at will, no shock he doesn't care about, its clear he never has.

 

[Vanquish]

Now here this, someone's lying and it isn't me! Centrist my ass. If I had a dime for every liberal that claimed to be a "centrist, progressive, blah blah blah," I would be richer than George Soros.

The only person who said "NAZI" in this video was PHIL HARRIS the Congressman. He says under his breathe "oh you call me a liar and a Nazi."

No one in the video beside Phil Harris utters the word Nazi.

Another tactic of the LYING LIBERALS. They KNOW they cannot fight the truth on the right, so they are trying to smear us.

And if ANYONE has been calling anyone NAZI it has been liberals who have called conservatives Nazi since I have been alive.

And shall we remember Nancy Pelosi's lying claim of tea partiers carrying "swastikaaaaaaaahs."

Keep on lying liberals. All it reveals is, how afraid you are to debate us honestly, because if you do, you know you lose.

If this is how you debate...there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. No really, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it really hard.

I am a Centrist, buddy. I'm for term limits, I'm anti-abortion, I'm pro-gun...I could go on and on. So a) dont tell me what I am and b) dont accuse me of lying.

Hell, did you not see that I thought him saying he didnt care about the constitution was bad?

Do you just make up your mind about someone then start typing drivel? Come on, get your head unstuck and let's debate this rationally.

As far as the Nazi comment...you can tell from the context that he was called a Nazi earlier before the camera was rolling (or perhaps it was cut out). Do you want to look at this objectively ... or just be a partisan hack?

If you'd bother to read any of my other threads...I've linked to www.brain-terminal.com (a conservative filmmaker in the style of Michael Moore) where there are vids of dems using Nazi claims against Bush. I am a centrist, buddy.

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

If you are a centrist then how come you do the TYPICAL LIBERAL tactic of when contronted with facts you cannot refute, you start hysterically attacking me?

Did you think that was going to work? That I would start flaming back and derail the debate? WRONGO!

And we can tell he was called Nazi before the cameras rolled? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT or is that your PARTISAN HACK ASSUMPTION? LOL

I love this. Can you imagine that one in a court? "Your honor, we don't have on camera that the accused called anyone Nazi, but we KNOW he said it before the camera's rolled."

Oh yeah! That would work!

When all is said it done, it still boils down, to the fact you simply let your own bigoted assumptions about those questioning Phil Harris spill out, "because we all know how those tea partiers are!" Right?

And when those assumptions were challenged, you went into a partisan hack attack mode.

Does it ever crack everyone else up that the ONLY people that are NEVER "partisan" are liberals, er I mean "Centrists?" (Centrist, yeah what a laugh)

I don't care if you call yourself a moonie. The rhetoric tells a different story.

I haven't been hysterical at all, bro. You keep proving that you dont have any objectivity...and therefore your posts are worthless...by trying to force me into a particular political bent. It's amazing to me that I honestly tow the line...not trying to be partisan...and because I make a point against you...you have to paint me as partisan and hysterical. I feel like I'm literally watching a crazy person post with no concept of reality.

As for what goes in court, you might want to leave that to those of us who actually go to court. There are lots of examples of evidence gets in without direct evidence. Ever here of Parol evidence? Understandings or additional terms to a contract might be integrated even thought they're not part of the contract.

And as for you, Dude...
I don't hedge my positions...I simply see that neither side can claim moral or logical superiority. My positions are utterly consistent with each other. If you can't understand that someone can have a more nuanced view of politics than the "pick a party and defend them into absurdity" system that 99% of people on this board seem to favor...I can't help you.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If this is how you debate...there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. No really, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it really hard.

I am a Centrist, buddy. I'm for term limits, I'm anti-abortion, I'm pro-gun...I could go on and on. So a) dont tell me what I am and b) dont accuse me of lying.

Hell, did you not see that I thought him saying he didnt care about the constitution was bad?

Do you just make up your mind about someone then start typing drivel? Come on, get your head unstuck and let's debate this rationally.

As far as the Nazi comment...you can tell from the context that he was called a Nazi earlier before the camera was rolling (or perhaps it was cut out). Do you want to look at this objectively ... or just be a partisan hack?

If you'd bother to read any of my other threads...I've linked to www.brain-terminal.com (a conservative filmmaker in the style of Michael Moore) where there are vids of dems using Nazi claims against Bush. I am a centrist, buddy.

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

If you are a centrist then how come you do the TYPICAL LIBERAL tactic of when contronted with facts you cannot refute, you start hysterically attacking me?

Did you think that was going to work? That I would start flaming back and derail the debate? WRONGO!

And we can tell he was called Nazi before the cameras rolled? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT or is that your PARTISAN HACK ASSUMPTION? LOL

I love this. Can you imagine that one in a court? "Your honor, we don't have on camera that the accused called anyone Nazi, but we KNOW he said it before the camera's rolled."

Oh yeah! That would work!

When all is said it done, it still boils down, to the fact you simply let your own bigoted assumptions about those questioning Phil Harris spill out, "because we all know how those tea partiers are!" Right?

And when those assumptions were challenged, you went into a partisan hack attack mode.

Does it ever crack everyone else up that the ONLY people that are NEVER "partisan" are liberals, er I mean "Centrists?" (Centrist, yeah what a laugh)

I don't care if you call yourself a moonie. The rhetoric tells a different story.

I haven't been hysterical at all, bro. You keep proving that you dont have any objectivity...and therefore your posts are worthless...by trying to force me into a particular political bent. It's amazing to me that I honestly tow the line...not trying to be partisan...and because I make a point against you...you have to paint me as partisan and hysterical. I feel like I'm literally watching a crazy person post with no concept of reality.

As for what goes in court, you might want to leave that to those of us who actually go to court. There are lots of examples of evidence gets in without direct evidence. Ever here of Parol evidence? Understandings or additional terms to a contract might be integrated even thought they're not part of the contract.

And as for you, Dude...
I don't hedge my positions...I simply see that neither side can claim moral or logical superiority. My positions are utterly consistent with each other. If you can't understand that someone can have a more nuanced view of politics than the "pick a party and defend them into absurdity" system that 99% of people on this board seem to favor...I can't help you.

Um yeah, bullshit!

When you claim that someone has used the word Nazi because of your own assumption it had to be said before tape rolled, you are full of it.

When you have evidence let me know, until then your bias, speaks for itself.

 

[Oddball]

And as for you, Dude...
I don't hedge my positions...I simply see that neither side can claim moral or logical superiority. My positions are utterly consistent with each other. If you can't understand that someone can have a more nuanced view of politics than the "pick a party and defend them into absurdity" system that 99% of people on this board seem to favor...I can't help you.

Nuance schmuance....You're an outright squishy-squashy waffler.

And I mistrust both the remocrats and depublicans equally.

 

[Vanquish]

Then you ought to understand someone in the same boat. Instead you insult. Great job on that.
Show me one issue I've waffled on.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Then you ought to understand someone in the same boat. Instead you insult. Great job on that.
Show me one issue I've waffled on.

THIS ONE!

Oh the tea partiers called him a Nazi and we know that because we know it happened before the recording started?

That's not a waffle??????????



You could flip flop your way to New York on that one.

 

[Vanquish]

Stop playing "gotcha" and actually have an intellectually honest conversation for a second. You're doing a great job of getting my blood boiling...because it's taking every ounce of patience not to just go all insulty on your ass.

I didn't waffle. The representative said on the video that they said it. If you're taking as golden everything that's on that video...then take that to the bank! He accused them of calling him a Nazi (on tape) and they didn't refute it, did they?

Just because it's not on tape doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I swear to God, immature people like you are what make forums like this entirely worthless sometimes. Even worse, your partisan hackery...instead of trying to work and concede things...make trying to reach middle ground frustrating...and it makes the two sides get farther and farther apart. This kind of bullshit is why TeaParty people are thought to be whackos...

Seriously. You've all learned to dig in your heels and circle-jerk yourselves. And the more you do it...the more you feel like you're God's chosen and you're making headway...the more you just want to steamroll people.

 

[antagon]

Wrong, dickweed.

James Madison explained, in explicit detail, what he meant and didn't mean concerning the general welfare clause, in Federalist #41

notwithstanding what madison wrote in his half of the book, hamsterpenis, general welfare challenges have chiefly been raised against legislation where the intent of the law was seen to be punitive without benefit to the nation's general welfare. while it does not grant the power to act on anything itself, it is the basis by which the powers of the tax and spend clause cannot be usurped.

or as madison put it...

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

...in your own citation.

my statement is that there is plenty of shelter for the regulations in the bill in that the implications raised by the industry and the constituents of the elected folks working on the healthcare bill, moreover the role of medical care in healthfulness altogether, constitute an action fro the general welfare.

 

[Oddball]

Exceptionally weak attempt, tovarich.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

~James Madison

 

[antagon]

Exceptionally weak attempt, tovarich.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

~James Madison

the "powers connected with them.", idiot, are the tax and spend powers of congress. i specifically said that in my previous post. what is your point?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

WHAT???????

The interstate commerce clause says the government can FORCE you to buy something?????

What the hell????????

PLEASE try to explain that one. I would LOVE to hear you try and explain that one.

And if the government is forcing you to do something it is at the point of a gun. It's not like the government has never done that before.

You have lost this argument ever before you opened your mouth. SCOTUS will toss out the suit and refuse to hear it. Yep, son, you get to be part of America.

 

[Charles Stucker]

But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

Which is total CRAP.
This is why the states should convene a constitutional convention - to rid themselves of such dubious interpretations that are used to burden people with socialist policies.

 

[jillian]

But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

Which is total CRAP.
This is why the states should convene a constitutional convention - to rid themselves of such dubious interpretations that are used to burden people with socialist policies.

careful what you wish for...

the second amendment could get a big delete at a constitutional convention.... as could freedom of speech.

oh...and he was rather more polite to you than you deserved. you might want to actually know your subject matter before you spew.

 

[Charles Stucker]

But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

Which is total CRAP.
This is why the states should convene a constitutional convention - to rid themselves of such dubious interpretations that are used to burden people with socialist policies.

careful what you wish for...

the second amendment could get a big delete at a constitutional convention.... as could freedom of speech.

Only if the Yankee socialist retards are the only ones attending.
The last time there was a serious chance of the states using that power the government caved, so they might do the same this time - representatives from states can be counted on to look after the rights of states, not the central government. That is why the feds would react to such a possibility with due concern.

What would the libtards in New York do if a constitutional convention negated the whole shebang and had all fifty states go their separate ways? What could happen too. That seems FAR more likely than them deleting freedom of speech.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHAT???????

The interstate commerce clause says the government can FORCE you to buy something?????

What the hell????????

PLEASE try to explain that one. I would LOVE to hear you try and explain that one.

Most of the writing I have read on the health care bill's anticipated treatment by the United States Supreme Court, states that the Court will probably refuse to strike the bill down, mainly on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

And if the government is forcing you to do something it is at the point of a gun. It's not like the government has never done that before.

I thought so. Just an inflammatory phrase designed to scare people.

Yes, the thought of giving more power to the IRS does scare people, and rightfully so.

The IRS already abuses power beyond the original Constitution to seize people's homes or jail them for failure to pay taxes. Adding this health care insurance mandate or threat of penalty, which many people have represented not consenting to pay, gives the IRS even more questionable power, in violation of consent of the governed people affected.

If people and states had Obama's same option of "voluntary compliance," this bill would be constitutional because it would reflect the consent of the people and rights of the states.

Without that consent, the fact that it mandates under penalty of law, and crosses the lines between state and federal authority (not to mention church and state, since policies on health care, insurance, and funding invoke differences in individual beliefs and practices), it creates all levels of constitutional conflicts and contradictions.

One good thing I can say about this bill, is that it forces members of the public to engage in research and education on Constitutional laws and ethics in order to resolve inherit conflicts. That benefit is good for the general welfare, but enforcing the bill as is contradicts the law and risks an increase in threats of violence and waste of resources fighting politically instead of resolving conflicts directly and establishing better solutions.

The politicians who passed this law without equal regard for the cost and consequences of its unconstitutional provisions should be held financially responsible for corrections.

The concepts that are agreed upon, such as checks on corporations otherwise profiting off the lack of access to services, can be kept for businesses choosing to receive federal assistance or tax breaks, while giving individuals the option to invest health care dollars into alternative plans or programs of their choice instead of federal restrictions on these.

The right may blame socialism while the left blames capitalism, but in truth this bill promoting "corporate socialism" violates the values of both while satisfying neither.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem