Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I suggest you send your crystal ball back for maintenance, it should tell you that the split will be either 4-4 or 5-3.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

How about the fact that you should not be required to pay for my lifestyle choices? Do you enjoy paying for a broken down old man who preferred to sit around watching TV, munching on chips and cookie, rather than going out and keeping fit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

If it is to pay for the law that makes it a tax that requires us to purchase something. Would it be constitutional to require everyone, even if they do not own a car, to purchase gasoline to help pay for interstate highways?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?

Congress could always make the issue moot before the Supreme Court hands down a decision.

 

[Modbert]

If it is to pay for the law that makes it a tax that requires us to purchase something. Would it be constitutional to require everyone, even if they do not own a car, to purchase gasoline to help pay for interstate highways?

Maybe the analogy I'm thinking along the lines of is wrong, but using your logic, those who never call the police or fire department should not have to pay for either services for the city.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

That's not true at all. Does outlawing abortion advance personal liberty? Does keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell in place advance personal liberty? Is wanting to make it illegal to burn the flag advancing personal liberty?

The right is just as bad as the left when it comes to personal liberty.

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pk8IxqYF0E[/ame]

 

[Capitalist]

I swear to you, Obamacare is Constitutional!


(RCP)- “We are confident that the affordable care act will be upheld,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says about a Virginia court ruling on health care law.
Hahahaha..................

 

[Steerpike]

Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise). Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights. They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise). Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights. They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.

There are only a few civil libertarians in politics right now, and in January there will be one less. Feingold's politics were almost always wrong, but his stance on individual liberties was almost always right.

 

[Bern80]

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

yes both sides do it. Making, at best, not side better than the other.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

Maybe you should ask the unborn

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

the right to choose any and all of those things is the most fundamental right.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

Your not living in Europe.

 

[Steerpike]

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

Maybe you should ask the unborn

Yeah, the abortion argument isn't a good example, in my view. Because if you're a pro-lifer, then to you being against abortion is in and of itself a protection of our most fundamental liberty - life.

I happen to disagree. I'm pro-choice. And I do think there are plenty of areas where the right is hypocritical on individual rights and small government. But abortion isn't one of them. I don't agree with the position, but it is entirely consistent with a pro-liberties viewpoint if you believe the unborn are persons and entitled to the same rights as those who are born.

 

[loosecannon]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

It is the very question and it is the big problem because the answer becomes:

if that crap is upheld then "there is practically nothing that the Government can no longer require of us."

like a free foreplay session each time you wish to fly or take a train, or a free pass to enter and search your home without your knowledge, or read your e-mail just because.

The unitary executive is above the law and in that is itself unconstitutional.

And the fed IS trying to expand it's powers on every front from preventing states from enforcing existing federal law to intervening in bankruptcy proceedings.

But almost nobody really cares. They are two busy worrying about the other party to recognize the real dangers enfolding.

 

[Sallow]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.

Well if they do..which I doubt..we can finally go single payer.

 

[Intense]

Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise). Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights. They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.

I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.

 

[Common Sense]

Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise). Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights. They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.

I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.

it has already been ruled as free speech in the courts. they cant stop of news agency from printing it, they can only charge the person who gave them that classified information.

 

[Liability]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

It is the very question and it is the big problem because the answer becomes:

if that crap is upheld then "there is practically nothing that the Government can no longer require of us."

like a free foreplay session each time you wish to fly or take a train, or a free pass to enter and search your home without your knowledge, or read your e-mail just because.

The unitary executive is above the law and in that is itself unconstitutional.

And the fed IS trying to expand it's powers on every front from preventing states from enforcing existing federal law to intervening in bankruptcy proceedings.

But almost nobody really cares. They are two busy worrying about the other party to recognize the real dangers enfolding.

I hate to throw in some cold water, but that whole cockamamie crap about "unitary executive" is just so much meaningless pablum.

The Executive Branch IS unitary (yes there are some deliberate exceptions, but by and large it is what it is; and that's unitary).

And, more importantly, the FACT that the Executive Branch is unitary does not make it unConstitutional, either.

Certain authorities were given EXCLUSIVELY to the Judicial Branch (and then they claimed even more).

Certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Legislative Branch.

And, yes, certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Executive Branch.

The exclusivity of such authorities was granted BY the Constitution, so it cannot be UN-constitutional.

The bullet points to which you point may be areas of legitimate concern (to varied extents), but the problems have nothing to do with the mythical bogeyman of a "unitary executive."

 

[goldcatt]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

 

[Liability]

Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise). Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights. They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.

I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.

it has already been ruled as free speech in the courts. they cant stop of news agency from printing it, they can only charge the person who gave them that classified information.

The conundrum of "no prior restraints" was never found to prevent the government from prohibiting the publication of classified material. If you are thinking of the Pentagon Papers case, then you are misguided. Instead, the Court determined that the proponent (i.e., the government) had to meet what it called the "heavy burden" in order to prevail in obtaining an injunction to prohibit the publication. In the Pentagon Papers case, the Court found that the government had failed to meet that heavy burden.

 

[midcan5]

America has lost her heart, her compassion, her civic responsibility. Thankfully the supreme court didn't get any McCain selections. One can hope charity and good sense prevails as it does on occasion.

This nation is so controlled by corporate tools there would be no founders today.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

Imagine trying to pass SS today.

"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decision." Social Security Online