The battle for the "Big Fuckin Deal" begins tomorrow!

[Greenbeard]

If the mandate goes, the rest of it goes as well. There is no severability clause in the legislation.

The only time a severability clause is required is when Congress wants to specify that a provision is not severable. See the Eleventh Circuit's ruling explaining why they severed the individual mandate:

First, both the Senate and House legislative drafting manuals state that, in light of Supreme Court precedent in favor of severability, severability clauses are unnecessary unless they specifically state that all or some portions of a statute should not be severed. See Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senate, Legislative Drafting Manual, § 131 (Feb. 1997) (providing that “a severability clause is unnecessary” but distinguishing a “nonseverability clause,” which “provides that if a specific portion of an Act is declared invalid, the whole Act or some portion of the Act shall be invalid”); Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, House Legislative Counsel’s Manual on Drafting Style, § 328 (Nov. 1995) (stating that “a severability clause is unnecessary unless it provides in detail which related provisions are to fall, and which are not to fall, if a specified key provision is held invalid”).​

 

[Fang]

In the 1700's, you were better off NOT going to a doctor, and it was very cheap. Another STUPID BS loser for the GOP. Propaganda and corruption vs. intelligence and justice.

^^Another asswipe that fails to understand principle. Principle does not change as the calendar. Learn it, Live It, Know it.

You have no clue, and are the perfect brainwashed fool for greedy corporations. Our "health system" is a cruel, ridiculously expensive scam.

Chances are the SC will punt, but Obamacare doesn't even need the mandate to be a spectacular success.

Are you sure about that? I was listening to CNN this morning and all commentators agreed the entire plan falls apart if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. (notice I said "CNN" not "FoxNews")

 

[The Rabbi]

If the mandate goes, the rest of it goes as well. There is no severability clause in the legislation.

The only time a severability clause is required is when Congress wants to specify that a provision is not severable. See the Eleventh Circuit's ruling explaining why they severed the individual mandate:

First, both the Senate and House legislative drafting manuals state that, in light of Supreme Court precedent in favor of severability, severability clauses are unnecessary unless they specifically state that all or some portions of a statute should not be severed. See Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senate, Legislative Drafting Manual, § 131 (Feb. 1997) (providing that “a severability clause is unnecessary” but distinguishing a “nonseverability clause,” which “provides that if a specific portion of an Act is declared invalid, the whole Act or some portion of the Act shall be invalid”); Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, House Legislative Counsel’s Manual on Drafting Style, § 328 (Nov. 1995) (stating that “a severability clause is unnecessary unless it provides in detail which related provisions are to fall, and which are not to fall, if a specified key provision is held invalid”).​

Um, no. Guess again.
Supreme Court Obamacare Severability | TPMDC

 

[The Rabbi]

^^Another asswipe that fails to understand principle. Principle does not change as the calendar. Learn it, Live It, Know it.

You have no clue, and are the perfect brainwashed fool for greedy corporations. Our "health system" is a cruel, ridiculously expensive scam.

Chances are the SC will punt, but Obamacare doesn't even need the mandate to be a spectacular success.

Are you sure about that? I was listening to CNN this morning and all commentators agreed the entire plan falls apart if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. (notice I said "CNN" not "FoxNews")

The whole point of the mandate is to force young healthy people who really don't need much insurance to buy stuff they dont need to subsidize older less healthy people with expensive health care needs.
If you dump the mandate you are left with an unworkable system that will become grossly expensive in a short time.

 

[candycorn]

I don't see how the government can make you buy health insurance. This part of the law should be overturned. That being said, there are plenty of great things about the entire act.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any exerpts released yet?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ezra Klein always comes through:

Wonkbook: Absolutely everything you need to know about health reform’s Supreme Court debut - The Washington Post

 

[francoHFW]

OHHHHH, I get it, we're supposed to support your freedom to have a criminal lifestyle and be a BAD CITIZEN. Lovely. LOL

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

 

[francoHFW]

You've heard the arguments a hundred times. The only question is, how criminally pqrtisan IS this Supreme Court? There are MANY precedents for the gov't mandating things, and dittoheads going back to the constitution, and ignoring all the law based on it SINCE, is RIDICULOUS. This is the corrupt GOP protecting a corrupt, cruel, ridiculously expensive "system" for their greedy, corrupt, corporate masters...Pub dupes! And a helluva lot of MYOPIC cheaters like Brig in Kannapols...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ohhhhh, i get it, we're supposed to support your freedom to have a criminal lifestyle and be a bad citizen. Lovely. Lol

whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill i can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in d.c. To trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

you have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the patient protection and affordable care act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a stupid, lying hypocrite as your asshole pub heroes.

So, gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old msn forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off america. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

the government can't get what they can't trace and working for cash makes me independent.

 

[candycorn]

You've heard the arguments a hundred times. The only question is, how criminally pqrtisan IS this Supreme Court? There are MANY precedents for the gov't mandating things, and dittoheads going back to the constitution, and ignoring all the law based on it SINCE, is RIDICULOUS. This is the corrupt GOP protecting a corrupt, cruel, ridiculously expensive "system" for their greedy, corrupt, corporate masters...Pub dupes! And a helluva lot of MYOPIC cheaters like Brig in Kannapols...

You should tone it down some really. Criminal? c'mon.

Enumerate what is mandated by the government, please. I'm curious.

 

[occupied]

If they strike it down it means that the supreme court is infected by partisanship, nothing for anyone to celebrate, but I cannot see them damaging the federal government's power of mandate over this.

 

[Dragon]

A semi-colon doesn't signify a coming clarification?

Nope. A colon does. Note that semicolons appear after each and every one of the enumerated powers. If what you say a bout semicolons were true, then all of the powers would be modifications of the "necessary and proper" clause, and that would give Congress carte blanche to do absolutely anything. Which is not how it works.

 

[dblack]

If they uphold it down it means that the supreme court is infected by partisanship, nothing for anyone to celebrate, but I cannot see them bolstering the federal government's unlimited power of mandate over this.

 

[francoHFW]

You've heard the arguments a hundred times. The only question is, how criminally pqrtisan IS this Supreme Court? There are MANY precedents for the gov't mandating things, and dittoheads going back to the constitution, and ignoring all the law based on it SINCE, is RIDICULOUS. This is the corrupt GOP protecting a corrupt, cruel, ridiculously expensive "system" for their greedy, corrupt, corporate masters...Pub dupes! And a helluva lot of MYOPIC cheaters like Brig in Kannapols...

You should tone it down some really. Criminal? c'mon.

Enumerate what is mandated by the government, please. I'm curious.

If they are partisan, it is criminal. The first precedent was men having to buy gunpowder for the militia. There are many since. Don't be obtuse, I'm not your mother. Google.

 

[Dragon]

There's simply no need to dream up an "implied power to spend". It's covered quite nicely by the "necessary and proper" clause (#18).

No, the power to spend is not a "necessary and proper" law required to levy taxes. The power to spend is implied by what the Constitution says the Congress may levy taxes in order to do, viz:

Pay the debts
Provide for the common defense
Provide for the general welfare

Each of these requires spending money.

The funny thing here is that if the government had enacted a single-payer system, which would be vastly better (and also more progressive) than Obamacare, there'd be no doubt as to its constitutionality. It would amount to simply an expansion of Medicare, whose constitutionality is long established. But this Rube Goldberg contraption does raise issues, which the Court has now begun addressing.

 

[tinydancer]

OHHHHH, I get it, we're supposed to support your freedom to have a criminal lifestyle and be a BAD CITIZEN. Lovely. LOL

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

I thought you said you were a PHD....


What are you for true?

 

[tinydancer]

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

I thought you said you were a PHD....


What are you for true?

Holy toledo you just gave yourself away. I don't know you but i can track you now. Wow....

 

[dblack]

There's simply no need to dream up an "implied power to spend". It's covered quite nicely by the "necessary and proper" clause (#18).

No, the power to spend is not a "necessary and proper" law required to levy taxes.

Sure it is. You have to pay the tax collectors. More importantly, it's necessary and proper to implement the other powers. You can't raise an army or run the post office without the ability to spend money.

The power to tax, is the power to tax, period. That's why it doesn't say anything about spending. It does however limit that power. They can't tax us for the hell of it, just to enrich the federal government. They can only tax us for the following broad reasons:

Pay the debts
Provide for the common defense
Provide for the general welfare

Those are constraints on the the power to tax. It doesn't say anything about spending because spending is obviously 'necessary and proper' to effect the enumerated powers.

The funny thing here is that if the government had enacted a single-payer system, which would be vastly better (and also more progressive) than Obamacare, there'd be no doubt as to its constitutionality. It would amount to simply an expansion of Medicare, whose constitutionality is long established. But this Rube Goldberg contraption does raise issues, which the Court has now begun addressing.

Maybe. Hopefully we can squeeze something of value out of the debacle, and set precedent for clear limitations on federal power.

 

[francoHFW]

I told you I had a Masters- can you get ANYTHING right?