Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Centrism'sVoice]

The problem with this type of thinking and usage by the court is that your ideology may be in the minority one day. And, instead of making decisions you like, the court may make a bunch of laws you dislike and enslave you. But, since they would do so in the guise of "interpreting the Constitution," you would have no recourse but amendment to the Constitution.

I believe the left understands this and that's why they kick and struggle so mightily when the right puts up judges.

No, it's because the only judges the right wants to put up are activist ones.

One of the many things that makes you so amusing is how you continually rant against the tyranny of the central government, yet you haven't breathed a word so far about its most recent USSC example (Bush v Gore).

 

[jillian]

I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:

Both fine justices who were not in the majority on this case.

Is stare decisis binding or a pick and choose type thing?

I do like Stewart though... he was smart enough to know that there were no bright line tests in certain areas... like not being able to define obscenity, but knowing it when he saw it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that “from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"

The New York Times > Log In

I believe that there was no role for activism on the court. You'll notice that is in past tense. I believe there has been so much left wing activism on the court, that right wing activism is now necessary to bring the law back into balance.

That said, I think the right's activism should be textually based in Constitutional analysis and comport to the "original understanding" of the Constitution as nearly every scholar prior to the modern era has recommended. If you are not basing your decisions on the original understanding of the Constitution, you are basing it on, essentially, your ass.

The court should draw it's horns in and focus on restoring the structures and foundations of American National government.

 

[jillian]

And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that “from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"

The New York Times > Log In

I believe that there was no role for activism on the court. You'll notice that is in past tense. I believe there has been so much left wing activism on the court, that right wing activism is now necessary to bring the law back into balance.

That said, I think the right's activism should be textually based in Constitutional analysis and comport to the "original understanding" of the Constitution as nearly every scholar prior to the modern era has recommended. If you are not basing your decisions on the original understanding of the Constitution, you are basing it on, essentially, your ass.

The court should draw it's horns in and focus on restoring the structures and foundations of American National government.

You're not looking... the ACTIVISTS are the right-wingers

You can say what you want, but you should know there is no such thing as a school of constitutional construction called "originalist" at least not of any note until scalia took the bench and decided he wanted to remake the court in his own political image.

Now...about Bush v Gore... what's more activist than the Supreme Court ignoring years of law that said the determination of the highest court of a state as to election law is final and won't be touched by the Federal bench?

And let's not forget the propriety of issuing the only decision in Court history that is self-professed to have no value as precedent.... not to mention the ethical propriety of a justice who doesn't recuse himself from a determination affecting his hunting buddy.

Wanna talk activist?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:

Both fine justices who were not in the majority on this case.

Is stare decisis binding or a pick and choose type thing?

I do like Stewart though... he was smart enough to know that there were no bright line tests in certain areas... like not being able to define obscenity, but knowing it when he saw it.

I was making a point when talking about stare decisis. The point was that the left....witness the supreme court hearings, is always making sure that judges are going to follow precedent. Why? Because they have "MADE" so much law with the supreme court, they don't want to see any rollbacks of their successes. Laws made by the undemocratic judicial oligarchy.

What I was getting at was, once the court was different. The laws and precedent were different and the SCOTUS went through and overruled whole series of cases. Terminating whole lines of cases which had placed "gloss" on various parts of the Constitution. So what? you say, "I agree with the outcome, the court did absolutely the right thing." Ah, but that's the problem. If the court now overruled DARBY and GRISWOLD and WICKER I would stand up and cheer and you would be confined to an institution because you'd be inconsolable. So, stare decisis and your favor of it depends on which side of the revolutionary change you are on.

 

[Navy1960]

I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would turn around and abandon those same principles.

You mean me?

Interesting analogy but we're not talking about anyone forcing or denying a particular type of medical procedure, are we?

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I'm talking about denying coverage and passing mandates on personal liberty, i.e. your right make your own healthcare choices. Further, this bill also mandates taxpayer funded abortion, so what it is doing is denying liberties to those that disagree with abortion on religious grounds by taking their tax dollars and funding abortions with it. Trust me jillian this bill fly's in the face of the constitution and one need not be a constitutional scholar to see that or a lawyer to understand it. Further, there is also mandates that traple on the 10th Amendment in the bill as well. I have read the bill and Waxmans' committee is trying to justify this whole bill under the commerce clause and thats a very very weak argument to pass a constitutional challenge. So if you support this bill and also support the decisions in roe v wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey then yes it would include you as well.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

If that is your answer it would be your position that framers intended for the fed to be able to tax what they want for whatever they went except for:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

about right?

Not that either of these clauses has anything to do with healthcare, but I would agree with that conclusion.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Madison was the primary author of the constitution and the words cited in the federalist papers tell us how he intended the document to be interpreted. That is a bit more forceful than saying 'gee I would sure like it if you interpreted it this way, but go ahead and do what you want'. If the federalist papers were mere guidelines of how we could interpret the document there would be little reason to write it in the first place.

People often write things when they have little reason to, Bern: just look at this forum!

The bottom line, however, is that the existing system of laws has its precedents not only in the Constitution and various SC cases, but in English common law and elsewhere. Much more than just "Gee, we'd sure like it if..." But if you count yourself among those who say that we should interpret the Constitution based only on Madison's writing, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that “from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"

The New York Times > Log In

I believe that there was no role for activism on the court. You'll notice that is in past tense. I believe there has been so much left wing activism on the court, that right wing activism is now necessary to bring the law back into balance.

That said, I think the right's activism should be textually based in Constitutional analysis and comport to the "original understanding" of the Constitution as nearly every scholar prior to the modern era has recommended. If you are not basing your decisions on the original understanding of the Constitution, you are basing it on, essentially, your ass.

The court should draw it's horns in and focus on restoring the structures and foundations of American National government.

You're not looking... the ACTIVISTS are the right-wingers

You can say what you want, but you should know there is no such thing as a school of constitutional construction called "originalist" at least not of any note until scalia took the bench and decided he wanted to remake the court in his own political image.

Now...about Bush v Gore... what's more activist than the Supreme Court ignoring years of law that said the determination of the highest court of a state as to election law is final and won't be touched by the Federal bench?

And let's not forget the propriety of issuing the only decision in Court history that is self-professed to have no value as precedent.... not to mention the ethical propriety of a justice who doesn't recuse himself from a determination affecting his hunting buddy.

Wanna talk activist?

I would encourage you to read the "The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law" You'll prolly only make it through the introduction before you open a vein, but I had to suffer through a litany of left wing diatribes on the law of the left from Larry Tribe to Alan Dershiwitz to Cathrine McKinnon. I submit it will do you good.

I believe that book precedes or is contemporaneous with Scalia's appointment. If you read Jefferson or Madison on how Constitutional analysis is to be done, it is in line with Bork and Scalia but not Brennan and Marshall. Sorry, no dice.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, Bush v. Gore. In my opinion, it never should have gone to the court. It was a political question and should have been decided by the House of Representatives not the Supreme Court. But Gore chose the venue for the resolution. No election for President of the United States should ever be resolved by a state court. (or any other state body.) If that's what you thought should have happened, it was a non-starter. Never had a chance of happening.

 

[jillian]

I believe that there was no role for activism on the court. You'll notice that is in past tense. I believe there has been so much left wing activism on the court, that right wing activism is now necessary to bring the law back into balance.

That said, I think the right's activism should be textually based in Constitutional analysis and comport to the "original understanding" of the Constitution as nearly every scholar prior to the modern era has recommended. If you are not basing your decisions on the original understanding of the Constitution, you are basing it on, essentially, your ass.

The court should draw it's horns in and focus on restoring the structures and foundations of American National government.

You're not looking... the ACTIVISTS are the right-wingers

You can say what you want, but you should know there is no such thing as a school of constitutional construction called "originalist" at least not of any note until scalia took the bench and decided he wanted to remake the court in his own political image.

Now...about Bush v Gore... what's more activist than the Supreme Court ignoring years of law that said the determination of the highest court of a state as to election law is final and won't be touched by the Federal bench?

And let's not forget the propriety of issuing the only decision in Court history that is self-professed to have no value as precedent.... not to mention the ethical propriety of a justice who doesn't recuse himself from a determination affecting his hunting buddy.

Wanna talk activist?

I would encourage you to read the "The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law" You'll prolly only make it through the introduction before you open a vein, but I had to suffer through a litany of left wing diatribes on the law of the left from Larry Tribe to Alan Dershiwitz to Cathrine McKinnon. I submit it will do you good.

I believe that book precedes or is contemporaneous with Scalia's appointment. If you read Jefferson or Madison on how Constitutional analysis is to be done, it is in line with Bork and Scalia but not Brennan and Marshall. Sorry, no dice.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, Bush v. Gore. In my opinion, it never should have gone to the court. It was a political question and should have been decided by the House of Representatives not the Supreme Court. But Gore chose the venue for the resolution. No election for President of the United States should ever be resolved by a state court. (or any other state body.) If that's what you thought should have happened, it was a non-starter. Never had a chance of happening.

No...Bush chose the venue... hence it being BUSH v. Gore... Gore sued in State Court which was the appropriate venue for determination of a state election law question.

Jefferson and Madisons views of constitutional construction were found untenable by the Court as far back as Marbury v. Madison... so no dice in that regard...

If you don't like 200 years of precedent based on that case's determination of what judicial review is, then I think you have an essential problem with our system.

 

[jillian]

I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would turn around and abandon those same principles.

You mean me?

Interesting analogy but we're not talking about anyone forcing or denying a particular type of medical procedure, are we?

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I'm talking about denying coverage and passing mandates on personal liberty, i.e. your right make your own healthcare choices. Further, this bill also mandates taxpayer funded abortion, so what it is doing is denying liberties to those that disagree with abortion on religious grounds by taking their tax dollars and funding abortions with it. Trust me jillian this bill fly's in the face of the constitution and one need not be a constitutional scholar to see that or a lawyer to understand it. Further, there is also mandates that traple on the 10th Amendment in the bill as well. I have read the bill and Waxmans' committee is trying to justify this whole bill under the commerce clause and thats a very very weak argument to pass a constitutional challenge. So if you support this bill and also support the decisions in roe v wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey then yes it would include you as well.

I don't see where you can't make your own healthcare choices. You have to get car insurance, why not health insurance? especially if the rest of us are paying for you if you don't get insurance.

As for abortion, no one would force anyone to have one. And my tax money went for a war of choice in Iraq which I objected to strenuously, as well as abstinence only programs and scientific studies looking at whether prayer works. That's part of being a member of society. We don't agree with everything our goverment does. After agreeing with almost nothing my goverment did for eight years, I'd say that if we agree with a good part of it, we're ahead of the game...

not that there isn't room for discussion and disagreement.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Oh sorry, almost forgot, Bush v. Gore. In my opinion, it never should have gone to the court. It was a political question and should have been decided by the House of Representatives not the Supreme Court. But Gore chose the venue for the resolution. No election for President of the United States should ever be resolved by a state court. (or any other state body.) If that's what you thought should have happened, it was a non-starter. Never had a chance of happening.

Apparently you forgot about the 12th amendment as well. It says that "the electors in each state...shall vote by ballot" and make lists of everyone voted for as President and VP, sending the lists to the President of the Senate. That's it. The only role the central government ever plays in the election process. The states have always had total autonomy in how their voters elect the electors. Sorry, no dice.

 

[Navy1960]

You mean me?

Interesting analogy but we're not talking about anyone forcing or denying a particular type of medical procedure, are we?

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I'm talking about denying coverage and passing mandates on personal liberty, i.e. your right make your own healthcare choices. Further, this bill also mandates taxpayer funded abortion, so what it is doing is denying liberties to those that disagree with abortion on religious grounds by taking their tax dollars and funding abortions with it. Trust me jillian this bill fly's in the face of the constitution and one need not be a constitutional scholar to see that or a lawyer to understand it. Further, there is also mandates that traple on the 10th Amendment in the bill as well. I have read the bill and Waxmans' committee is trying to justify this whole bill under the commerce clause and thats a very very weak argument to pass a constitutional challenge. So if you support this bill and also support the decisions in roe v wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey then yes it would include you as well.

I don't see where you can't make your own healthcare choices. You have to get car insurance, why not health insurance? especially if the rest of us are paying for you if you don't get insurance.

As for abortion, no one would force anyone to have one. And my tax money went for a war of choice in Iraq which I objected to strenuously, as well as abstinence only programs and scientific studies looking at whether prayer works. That's part of being a member of society. We don't agree with everything our goverment does. After agreeing with almost nothing my goverment did for eight years, I'd say that if we agree with a good part of it, we're ahead of the game...

not that there isn't room for discussion and disagreement.

I completely agree we can disagree on the merits of it, however the car insurance anaology is not a very good one and can tell you why. You don't choose to be alive , however you do choose to own or not to own a car. The difference being is that by mandating one carry health insurance it limits one personal choice to make their own decisions as to their own well being. However with auto insurance because you do have the the choice not to own a car and therefor not pay it, in the healthcare case you don't. As for the Iraq issue , I will simply say this constitutionally speaking your taxes fund the Military and you do have through the power of the ballot box to change that every 2 to 4 years, However in this case if you disagree based on your rights under the constitution to Freedom of Religion you have no such recourse.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I completely agree we can disagree on the merits of it, however the car insurance anaology is not a very good one and can tell you why. You don't choose to be alive , however you do choose to own or not to own a car. The difference being is that by mandating one carry health insurance it limits one personal choice to make their own decisions as to their own well being. However with auto insurance because you do have the the choice not to own a car and therefor not pay it, in the healthcare case you don't.

In my opinion, yours is not a very good analogy either: reason being, it's within the power of any able-bodied adult to commit suicide. It just happens that most of us would prefer to be alive (just as most of us would prefer to have the use of a car).

 

[jillian]

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I'm talking about denying coverage and passing mandates on personal liberty, i.e. your right make your own healthcare choices. Further, this bill also mandates taxpayer funded abortion, so what it is doing is denying liberties to those that disagree with abortion on religious grounds by taking their tax dollars and funding abortions with it. Trust me jillian this bill fly's in the face of the constitution and one need not be a constitutional scholar to see that or a lawyer to understand it. Further, there is also mandates that traple on the 10th Amendment in the bill as well. I have read the bill and Waxmans' committee is trying to justify this whole bill under the commerce clause and thats a very very weak argument to pass a constitutional challenge. So if you support this bill and also support the decisions in roe v wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey then yes it would include you as well.

I don't see where you can't make your own healthcare choices. You have to get car insurance, why not health insurance? especially if the rest of us are paying for you if you don't get insurance.

As for abortion, no one would force anyone to have one. And my tax money went for a war of choice in Iraq which I objected to strenuously, as well as abstinence only programs and scientific studies looking at whether prayer works. That's part of being a member of society. We don't agree with everything our goverment does. After agreeing with almost nothing my goverment did for eight years, I'd say that if we agree with a good part of it, we're ahead of the game...

not that there isn't room for discussion and disagreement.

I completely agree we can disagree on the merits of it, however the car insurance anaology is not a very good one and can tell you why. You don't choose to be alive , however you do choose to own or not to own a car. The difference being is that by mandating one carry health insurance it limits one personal choice to make their own decisions as to their own well being. However with auto insurance because you do have the the choice not to own a car and therefor not pay it, in the healthcare case you don't. As for the Iraq issue , I will simply say this constitutionally speaking your taxes fund the Military and you do have through the power of the ballot box to change that every 2 to 4 years, However in this case if you disagree based on your rights under the constitution to Freedom of Religion you have no such recourse.

what if you disagree with war because you're a conscientious objector or your religious beliefs require pacifism? You have no recourse then either. Abortion is no more or less onerous to some than war. And as you said, if you don't like what they spend your money on, that's what your vote is for.

As for being forced to pay for health insurance, the fact is that everyone gets medical care at some time or another. If you have no insurance and default on your bill, and have to file bankruptcy, that affects all of us. If you avail yourself of the services of an Emergency Room because you have no health insurance, we all pay for that.

Ultimately, we pay for it anyway... at least maybe other people get to bear the burden if having insurance is mandatory.

 

[Navy1960]

So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a Free society and a market based economy default costs on Everything generally are passed along to the consumer. Healthcare is no different in that respect. That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny. If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly outside the bounds of their charter.

 

[jillian]

So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a Free society and a market based economy default costs on Everything generally are passed along to the consumer. Healthcare is no different in that respect. That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny. If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly outside the bounds of their charter.

I understand what you're saying. Really... but I can't get past the fact that we're the only "civilized" nation that doesn't care for it's people. It makes no sense to me and it's making it so we can't compete in the global marketplace.

As for health provision on a state by state basis, seems to me this would be covered by the commerce clause.

Besides, if you ask your state senator, the LAST thing they want is for the state to have to pay for this without the feds.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So then what your saying is that personal choice is not yours to make because you may or may not go to the Emergency Room is that correct? Your assumption is based on the premise that everyone defaults that doesn't have insurance, and also is based on the premise that the high costs of medical care are a result of those defaults. This is true jillian for every single business venture from credit cards to car ownership, so perhaps based on that logic we should mandate that everyone carry bankruptcy insurance now to because they may or may not someday default on a credit card or default on a car. The facts are in a Free society and a market based economy default costs on Everything generally are passed along to the consumer. Healthcare is no different in that respect. That is the price you pay for living in a FREE society and my suggestion is that in order to bring about reform you regulate the reasons for the rise in costs and not subvert the constitution by taking away a persons freedom to choose their own destiny. If you and others who believe as you do really want to bring down the costs of healthcare then address the real issues of healthcare costs or perhaps, go to your state houses and ask your state legislature place on your states ballot universal healthcare and let the individual states make that choice for themselves and not by some Federal fiat that is clearly outside the bounds of their charter.

I understand what you're saying. Really... but I can't get past the fact that we're the only "civilized" nation that doesn't care for it's people. It makes no sense to me and it's making it so we can't compete in the global marketplace.

As for health provision on a state by state basis, seems to me this would be covered by the commerce clause.

Besides, if you ask your state senator, the LAST thing they want is for the state to have to pay for this without the feds.

Each state having its own healthcare option would be intrastate commerce not interstate commerce, therefore not remotely covered by the commerce clause.

 

[jillian]

Each state having its own healthcare option would be intrastate commerce not interstate commerce, therefore not remotely covered by the commerce clause.

okie dokie.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

In the interest of "fairness and balance," it's worth noting that the city of San Francisco recently adopted universal care to cover everyone who lives and works there.
They pay for it with an extra sales tax. So far it seems to be working.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the interest of "fairness and balance," it's worth noting that the city of San Francisco recently adopted universal care to cover everyone who lives and works there.
They pay for it with an extra sales tax. So far it seems to be working.

That's fine for San Francisco. The founders never intended that every state and every city would do the same things. If the people of San Francisco have a problem with it then it will be easier for them to change the situation at a local or state level than it would at the federal level.