Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[daveman]

No, it prohibits this kind of legislation because it doesn't allow it.

To repeat: commerce-taxation-necessary and proper.

As I said elsewhere, it's funny watching people who loathed government under the GOP display this slavish adoration for it now.

You may not be aware of this, but most of this program is going to be run at the state level (just as our health care system is primarily under state jurisdiction right now). States will continue to run their Medicaid programs and they will run the new health insurance exchanges. Many states are governed by Republicans. I've spoken with Republican appointees running Medicaid programs in Republican states and found them to be perfectly nice, generally competent people. As long as competent public servants are selected to administer programs, party affiliation isn't all that important. Plenty of Republican states are doing great things with health care right now. And they should be proud of that.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I guess that was a shovel-ready project.

 

[daveman]

2. Even if we had been at war, that still doesn't invalidate the legal argument.

I'm not sure why, but daveman seems to be arguing for a circumstantial interpretation of the Constitution--if conditions justify X, then we can let it slide. Which is a bit odd because I'm not sure how that squares with "If you can find justification to support your agenda in there, somewhere, no matter how convoluted or outright fabricated, there's simply no way to argue against that."

That's always the argument the right uses (under the misleading/dishonest name of "original intent").

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

 

[Polk]

So you're really going to stick with the equivalence of a struggling young nation at war with mandatory insurance.

1. We weren't at war in 1792.

So peace reigned throughout the world? Why did Washington think we needed a militia, then?

For national defense. Same reason today we keep a standing army during peacetime.

2. Even if we had been at war, that still doesn't invalidate the legal argument.

No, the legal argument itself invalidates the legal argument.

Except that you haven't made a legal argument. You've effectively said "It's different because I say it's different".

 

[daveman]

1. We weren't at war in 1792.

So peace reigned throughout the world? Why did Washington think we needed a militia, then?

For national defense. Same reason today we keep a standing army during peacetime.

2. Even if we had been at war, that still doesn't invalidate the legal argument.

No, the legal argument itself invalidates the legal argument.

Except that you haven't made a legal argument. You've effectively said "It's different because I say it's different".

You see what you want to see. Nothing more.

 

[Polk]

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.

Well of course they're not making one, because there really isn't one to be made.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

You can use DoI phrases all you want, but they're NOT part of the Constitution, which kinda undercuts a lot of arguments against the HC Bill as a result.

 

[daveman]

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.

Well of course they're not making one, because there really isn't one to be made.

Gotta tell ya...the argument "It's Constitutional because Democrats did it!" isn't a very strong one.

 

[Polk]

I'm not sure why, but daveman seems to be arguing for a circumstantial interpretation of the Constitution--if conditions justify X, then we can let it slide. Which is a bit odd because I'm not sure how that squares with "If you can find justification to support your agenda in there, somewhere, no matter how convoluted or outright fabricated, there's simply no way to argue against that."

That's always the argument the right uses (under the misleading/dishonest name of "original intent").

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.

 

[Polk]

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

Well of course they're not making one, because there really isn't one to be made.

Gotta tell ya...the argument "It's Constitutional because Democrats did it!" isn't a very strong one.

No, it's constitutional because the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[daveman]

That's always the argument the right uses (under the misleading/dishonest name of "original intent").

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.

Congratulations. You've just dismissed the entire Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's always the argument the right uses (under the misleading/dishonest name of "original intent").

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.

Perspective is perspective no matter what time period you are in or what label you attach to it. The Founders did have a particular perspective that withstood the test of time. It was when those in government began infusing a different perspective that slowly but surely it has been coming apart and the uglies the Founders were determined to keep out of the system have been creeping in. And that phenomenon is a snowball that has been picking up steam ever since and is now reaching crisis proportions.

When the 'liberals' among us cannot or will not even attempt to define unalienable rights and do not see why that should even be a part of this discussion, it becomes perfectly obvious that the chasm between liberals and conservatives in America today is probably too wide to bridge.

Fortunately those on your side are only about 21% of the population these days:

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Edit: The above is the 2009 data. Here is the 2010 data and the conservatives are slowing gaining and the liberals are losing ground:

 

[Polk]

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.

Congratulations. You've just dismissed the entire Constitution.

No, because the Constitution is a written document. You don't need astral projection to the 1700s to read it, because the words are still written down.

 

[rightwinger]

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.

In other worlds, who the fuck do you think you are?

The majority acting within in the framework of a Constitutional Republic, the laws of which in this matter do not infringe on your inalienable rights. In other words, daveman, you are not an island alone.

Ahhh, but that does infringe on my rights. I have to purchase something I may not want to...or face a penalty from the government. I would call that "unreasonable search and seizure".

As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?

Come on Dave....get to the point wher you presently have insurance anyway

Like most Americans who whine about "having" to buy insurance

 

[Polk]

Are you prepared to make the case that the Founding Fathers were liberals?

I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.

Perspective is perspective no matter what time period you are in or what label you attach to it. The Founders did have a particular perspective that withstood the test of time. It was when those in government began infusing a different perspective that slowly but surely it has been coming apart and the uglies the Founders were determined to keep out of the system have been creeping in. And that phenomenon is a snowball that has been picking up steam ever since and is now reaching crisis proportions.

When the 'liberals' among us cannot or will not even attempt to define unalienable rights and do not see why that should even be a part of this discussion, it becomes perfectly obvious that the chasm between liberals and conservatives in America today is probably too wide to bridge.

Fortunately those on your side are only about 21% of the population these days:

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Edit: The above is the 2009 data. Here is the 2010 data and the conservatives are slowing gaining and the liberals are losing ground:

Your projecting your beliefs on to people long dead because it makes you feel better about your position. Nothing more, nothing less.

And ideology polling is one of the least useful things on the planet. Just to give an example, take a poll of African-Americans asking the same question. Large portion self-IDs are conservatives, yet are very supportive of programs that make the right cringe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your projecting your beliefs on to people long dead because it makes you feel better about your position. Nothing more, nothing less.

And ideology polling is one of the least useful things on the planet. Just to give an example, take a poll of African-Americans asking the same question. Large portion self-IDs are conservatives, yet are very supportive of programs that make the right cringe.

Sorry, but if any projecting has been done it has been those long dead people who have projected their beliefs on me. After prolonged study of the dynamics, perspective, and convictions freely stated by those long dead people, I have been unable to find any flaw in the core principles they set down as the foundation for a new Constitutional Republic. Those principles have worked quite well every time they have been tried. And every time we have deviated from those core principles we have suffered unintended negative consequences.

And perhaps you can explain why you think polling African Americans is important to do to judge the pulse of America? The way Americans see themselves? Are African Americans not Americans too? Is there some reason you have for separating them out and evaluating them differently?

And can you define unalienable rights as the Founders defined them?
Can you explain how those unalienable rights as the Founders defined them are pertinent to the discussion re the healthcare legislation?
Do you have any clue what it is that modern American conservatives actually do promote and/or hold dear. And why an overwhelming number of Americans define themselves as conservative or moderate?

If you can answer those questions, then you might have a clue why so many of us have voted "repeal now" on that poll up there.

As it is, so far the liberals on this thread have been pretty consistent in telegraphing that they don't have a clue.

 

[Greenbeard]

As it is, so far the liberals on this thread have been pretty consistent in telegraphing that they don't have a clue.

If you feel as though your position isn't understood, perhaps you should spend some time articulating it. Instead of offering multiple posts complaining that liberals just don't get you.

 

[Polk]

It's not more important that any other group and I'm not saying they're not Americans. In fact, I'm saying the flaws you see in that subset of these surveys is highly representative of the great flaw. I was just using it to illustrate why the polling we're talking about has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As for your questions about the Founders, you're making my argument for me. You have a set of beliefs, and you assume the Framers share them. That's a necessity of conservative thinking though. Everything has to define as inside the camp, or otherwise you're the alien other.

Inalienable rights are rights which are not dependent on society. They're not based on laws and customs. They're based on our shared bond: humanity. The debate isn't over the existence of these rights. The United States, along with all other developed nations, agree on a common framework of fundamental rights. Speech, religion, free assembly, fair trials (just to name a few). The debate is over the nature of these things. What are the lines? That's a question we have to answer. No freedom is without limit (you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't fully practice a religion which requires human sacrifice). The debate is over what these limits are. Saying "Well, the limits are whatever the Founders would have made them" is dishonest. We simply don't know the answer, and even if we did, that wouldn't make it the right one.

 

[Foxfyre]

As it is, so far the liberals on this thread have been pretty consistent in telegraphing that they don't have a clue.

If you feel as though your position isn't understood, perhaps you should spend some time articulating it. Instead of offering multiple posts complaining that liberals just don't get you.

I would do that if I had done that. But I haven't. I don't give a flying leap whether anybody 'gets me' or not. I have my own point of view about the Founding Fathers, what they were all about, and what convictions they built into the U.S. Constitution.

The liberals so far have continued to maintain that such is irrelevent while suggesting all manner of silly things in an ad hominem manner of what conservatives promote or want or think. They demand that the conservatives explain why the healthcare legislation is unconstitutional and then refuse to even consider the reasons given.

And as long as that situation exists, there's just other stuff I would rather do.

Thanks so much for understanding.

 

[RadiomanATL]

 

[Polk]

As it is, so far the liberals on this thread have been pretty consistent in telegraphing that they don't have a clue.

If you feel as though your position isn't understood, perhaps you should spend some time articulating it. Instead of offering multiple posts complaining that liberals just don't get you.

I would do that if I had done that. But I haven't. I don't give a flying leap whether anybody 'gets me' or not. I have my own point of view about the Founding Fathers, what they were all about, and what convictions they built into the U.S. Constitution.

The liberals so far have continued to maintain that such is irrelevent while suggesting all manner of silly things in an ad hominem manner of what conservatives promote or want or think. They demand that the conservatives explain why the healthcare legislation is unconstitutional and then refuse to even consider the reasons given.

And as long as that situation exists, there's just other stuff I would rather do.

Thanks so much for understanding.

You came so close, then fell backwards. You have a point of view about the Founding Fathers. That's fine, but it's your point of view. It's not the end-all, be-all one true and holy meaning for all of time.

Also, liberals refuse to consider the reasons conservatives give for saying ACA is unconstitutional? That's probably because conservatives haven't really made any arguments beyond "I don't like it, therefore it's unconstitutional". It becomes even more self-serving when the very remedies the right calls unconstitutional today are ones they've promoted within the past decade.