Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[daveman]

The Constitution means what the courts say it means. That is why we have courts. 200+ years of judicial decisions have backed the legislation that has been passed.

The rightwing has the Constitution backwards. They think "Show me where the Constitution specifically says you can do that"

The fact is you have to prove that what was done by a piece of legislation violates the Constitution ....if you can't...it IS Constitutional

Wow. You're leaving out the whole Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As usual, the rightwing overstates the powers of the 10th Amendment. In 200+ years of precedent the states rights issue of the 10th amendment has been severely limited

It is only now that the right wing whiners have lost all power at the federal level that they start to ressurect the 10th amendment.

Your challenges will fail in court...they always have

Ahhh, yes...the old "It's Constitutional because Democrats did it!" argument.

 

[rightwinger]

Is the 10th Amendment not in the Lefty Constitution?

The Tenth Amendment refers to powers not delegated to the federal government. We're discussing three powers that are:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

So why deflect with the Tenth Amendment when no one's talking about powers not delegated to the feds?

Guess we'll find out when all those suits hit the courts, huh? Assuming it isn't repealed before then, that is.

I see once again that when confronted with facts that you, yourself demand, that you run away

Looks like we are detecting a trend

 

[Greenbeard]

It is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not even going to addressing the point because you're using the Declaration of Independence to argue for unconstitutionality.

It is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect anybody's rights but rather takes away rights.

Now I'm just confused as to what you think "unconstitutional" means.

It would be constitutional if it required people to have independent wealth or insurance sufficient to pay for whatever health care they wanted or needed to obtain. I have no problem whatsoever with making it illegal to require others to pay for what you should provide for yourself.

In a system financed by insurance, that is what the individual mandate is for.

not to mention the unconstitutionality of unfair representation ie when Nebraska was exempted from all costs related to Medicaid or when all seniors except Floridian seniors lost their Medicare Advantage. The Supreme Court is going to be tied up for years.

Those provisions were removed before the bill became law. They don't exist.

 

[rightwinger]

Good point. I think some of our liberal brethren do not like the Constitution very much because it keeps the government from legally doing so much that the liberals want it to do.

And here we are on page 5, still without any argument for why the mandate is unconstitutional or any rebuttal to the justifications offered.

It is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect anybody's rights but rather takes away rights.

It would be constitutional if it required people to have independent wealth or insurance sufficient to pay for whatever health care they wanted or needed to obtain. I have no problem whatsoever with making it illegal to require others to pay for what you should provide for yourself.

But to force people to get healthcare whether they want it or not, or pay for it whether they use it or not steps way over the line of what the Founders intended the role of the federal government to be. And if it goes to the Supreme Court and we have enough justices who support the original intent of the Constitution, I believe they will see it exactly as I see it.

It is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is unconstitutional because it violates the Declaration of Independence?

 

[Foxfyre]

And here we are on page 5, still without any argument for why the mandate is unconstitutional or any rebuttal to the justifications offered.

It is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect anybody's rights but rather takes away rights.

It would be constitutional if it required people to have independent wealth or insurance sufficient to pay for whatever health care they wanted or needed to obtain. I have no problem whatsoever with making it illegal to require others to pay for what you should provide for yourself.

But to force people to get healthcare whether they want it or not, or pay for it whether they use it or not steps way over the line of what the Founders intended the role of the federal government to be. And if it goes to the Supreme Court and we have enough justices who support the original intent of the Constitution, I believe they will see it exactly as I see it.

not to mention the unconstitutionality of unfair representation ie when Nebraska was exempted from all costs related to Medicaid or when all seniors except Floridian seniors lost their Medicare Advantage. The Supreme Court is going to be tied up for years.

Can't rep you yet WT, but if I could I would have repped you for this.

That is also what makes this so unconstitutional. The Congress makes sure that they aren't affected by the legislation. They exempt the unions from the most basic provisions. They throw a few bones to insurance companies here and there to ensure their support, and then provide massive exemptions to buy the critical votes to pass the legislation. To force one segment of the population to fund a product most don't want while exempting other segments of the population flies in the face of all sense of justice.

How ANYBODY could say that there is any intent to be fair, just, or even reasonable with this stuff just boggles the mind.

 

[daveman]

The Tenth Amendment refers to powers not delegated to the federal government. We're discussing three powers that are:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

So why deflect with the Tenth Amendment when no one's talking about powers not delegated to the feds?

Guess we'll find out when all those suits hit the courts, huh? Assuming it isn't repealed before then, that is.

I see once again that when confronted with facts that you, yourself demand, that you run away

Looks like we are detecting a trend

You see what you want to see. And it shows.

 

[Greenbeard]

Can't rep you yet WT, but if I could I would have repped you for this.

As noted above, the provisions favoring Nebraska and Florida were stripped from the bill before it became law. Every state will receive the same FMAP for newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage in Florida will see the same reduction in overpayments as everywhere else.

The Congress makes sure that they aren't affected by the legislation.

Members of Congress are explicitly booted from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and required to buy insurance through a health insurance exchange once they're up and running in 2014.

They exempt the unions from the most basic provisions.

No, they don't. In an earlier incarnation, the excise tax on high cost plans would have been delayed 4 years (i.e. it would begin in 2018) for collectively bargained health plans. That was changed so that the excise tax on all plans begins in 2018, collectively bargained or not.

How ANYBODY could say that there is any intent to be fair, just, or even reasonable with this stuff just boggles the mind.

Might I suggest you might not be quite as familiar with what's in this law as you think you are?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not even going to addressing the point because you're using the Declaration of Independence to argue for unconstitutionality.

It is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect anybody's rights but rather takes away rights.

Now I'm just confused as to what you think "unconstitutional" means.

It would be constitutional if it required people to have independent wealth or insurance sufficient to pay for whatever health care they wanted or needed to obtain. I have no problem whatsoever with making it illegal to require others to pay for what you should provide for yourself.

In a system financed by insurance, that is what the individual mandate is for.

not to mention the unconstitutionality of unfair representation ie when Nebraska was exempted from all costs related to Medicaid or when all seniors except Floridian seniors lost their Medicare Advantage. The Supreme Court is going to be tied up for years.

Those provisions were removed before the bill became law. They don't exist.

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution. I am sure as a good liberal that you have a much different perception as to what unalienable rights are and feel no compelling interest to defend them as inviolate. And as a good liberal, I'm sure you do put great faith and confidence in the basic goodness and nobility of a government headed by like-minded liberals and see the role of government as governing the people rather than seeing the intent of the Constitution as protecting the right of the people to govern themselves.

I am also quite confident that should that leadership change to one that is basically conservative, you will be as hostile and contemptuous of that same government most especially should it presume to attempt to reinstate the unalienable rights the Founders intended and which too many liberals wish to believe do not exist.

And if you think all the 'goodies' for special interests were removed from that legislation before it was passed, I still have a very nice assortment of pretty bridges to show you.

 

[The T]

Take the kindergarten analysis elsewhere, Foxfyre. The courts, not you, expound what the Constitution means.

Will you be so blindly accepting when they make a decision you don't like?


It's really funny watching people who completely distrusted -- sometimes loathed -- government under a GOP President put an almost religious faith in government under a Democrat.

Duplicity reigns supreme in their Doctrine. As long as Liberty and the individual are destroyed? Sauce for the goose. These people do not belive in the individual or their worth. Everything is Group think. Everything they do is based upon groups.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution. I am sure as a good liberal that you have a much different perception as to what unalienable rights are and feel no compelling interest to defend them as inviolate. And as a good liberal, I'm sure you do put great faith and confidence in the basic goodness and nobility of a government headed by like-minded liberals and see the role of government as governing the people rather than seeing the intent of the Constitution as protecting the right of the people to govern themselves.

Sorry Foxfyre...but you can't lift words from the Declaration of Independence and use them to make a Constitutional argument

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries here (no, not one of you is conservative ~ you don't play that game) believe that Constitutional interpretation of the last 200 years somehow does not bind them. True Americans love and understand the Constitution. You reactionaries clearly don't.

Did Obama appoint you Who's A Real Conservative Czar?

I submit you don't know what you're talking about.

You are projecting your own inner confusion, daveman.

You don't interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court does, the Supreme Court has, and you are bound by it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution. I am sure as a good liberal that you have a much different perception as to what unalienable rights are and feel no compelling interest to defend them as inviolate. And as a good liberal, I'm sure you do put great faith and confidence in the basic goodness and nobility of a government headed by like-minded liberals and see the role of government as governing the people rather than seeing the intent of the Constitution as protecting the right of the people to govern themselves.

Sorry Foxfyre...but you can't lift words from the Declaration of Independence and use them to make a Constitutional argument

I can use any phrase I wish to make a constitutional argument, especially since I HAVE read the writings of the Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre can use the Declaration, of course, and fail in her argument.

 

[daveman]

Take the kindergarten analysis elsewhere, Foxfyre. The courts, not you, expound what the Constitution means.

Will you be so blindly accepting when they make a decision you don't like?


It's really funny watching people who completely distrusted -- sometimes loathed -- government under a GOP President put an almost religious faith in government under a Democrat.

Duplicity reigns supreme in their Doctrine. As long as Liberty and the individual are destroyed? Sauce for the goose. These people do not belive in the individual or their worth. Everything is Group think. Everything they do is based upon groups.

That is true. And man, do they get pissed if you don't stay in the nice neat cubbyhole they've decided you belong in.

Remember, folks...leftists know what's best for you. And they've decided that what's best is for you to surrender yourself to the Almighty Government. After all, they need someone to take care of them, so they think...well, that's not the right word...they feel everyone does.

 

[daveman]

The reactionaries here (no, not one of you is conservative ~ you don't play that game) believe that Constitutional interpretation of the last 200 years somehow does not bind them. True Americans love and understand the Constitution. You reactionaries clearly don't.

Did Obama appoint you Who's A Real Conservative Czar?

I submit you don't know what you're talking about.

You are projecting your own inner confusion, daveman.

You don't interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court does, the Supreme Court has, and you are bound by it.

Never said otherwise, did I? But I am also allowed to state my opinions.

For now, at least.

 

[The T]

Will you be so blindly accepting when they make a decision you don't like?


It's really funny watching people who completely distrusted -- sometimes loathed -- government under a GOP President put an almost religious faith in government under a Democrat.

Duplicity reigns supreme in their Doctrine. As long as Liberty and the individual are destroyed? Sauce for the goose. These people do not belive in the individual or their worth. Everything is Group think. Everything they do is based upon groups.

That is true. And man, do they get pissed if you don't stay in the nice neat cubbyhole they've decided you belong in.

Remember, folks...leftists know what's best for you. And they've decided that what's best is for you to surrender yourself to the Almighty Government. After all, they need someone to take care of them, so they think...well, that's not the right word...they feel everyone does.

Amen. And one other thing? American Exceptionalism is their ultimate target. And that was the Gift of the Founders.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution. I am sure as a good liberal that you have a much different perception as to what unalienable rights are and feel no compelling interest to defend them as inviolate. And as a good liberal, I'm sure you do put great faith and confidence in the basic goodness and nobility of a government headed by like-minded liberals and see the role of government as governing the people rather than seeing the intent of the Constitution as protecting the right of the people to govern themselves.

Sorry Foxfyre...but you can't lift words from the Declaration of Independence and use them to make a Constitutional argument

I can use any phrase I wish to make a constitutional argument, especially since I HAVE read the writings of the Founders.

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry Foxfyre...but you can't lift words from the Declaration of Independence and use them to make a Constitutional argument

I can use any phrase I wish to make a constitutional argument, especially since I HAVE read the writings of the Founders.

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights. I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

 

[The T]

I can use any phrase I wish to make a constitutional argument, especially since I HAVE read the writings of the Founders.

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

It was the purpose of the government to carry out the wishes of the people. It's 180 degrees out of phase from the intent and completely prostituted to 'groups' . The individual no longer matters.

American Exceptionalism no longer matters (if it ever did) to them.

 

[rightwinger]

I can use any phrase I wish to make a constitutional argument, especially since I HAVE read the writings of the Founders.

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights. I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

But I know what is covered in the Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution

Go back to your books....you FAILED a fourth grade question