Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[rightwinger]

I don't know why you people even bother with the Constitution any more. None of you seem to give a damn about it.

It appears that multiple people in this thread give a damn enough to express a willingness to openly discuss the constitutional issues, which is more than I can say for you.

Not much point discussing it, really, when the Left says "The Constitution means whatever we say it means!" 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.

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

 

[Polk]

Notice that all you've done is launch a personal attack. Your statement doesn't even attempt to address the issue at hand (and it's pretty obvious why).

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

 

[daveman]

Strangely, the rightwing thinks that their being voted out of office was unconstitutional.

Really? I've never seen that claim made.

They have claimed that every initiative passed by the Democrats somehow violates the Constitution.

That's only because many of them do.

It is clearly obvious that the conservatives have never read anything other than the second amendment.

I've read the Constitution, but I don't have the special Lefty Goggles that allow you to see stuff that's not actually there.

If you think anything that has been passed is unconstitutional, take it up in the courts. Because it is the courts that get to decide....not rightwing pundits

Indeed.

At least 20 state attorneys general, most of them Republicans, have filed suit against the government. The attorneys general, led by Republican Bill McCollum of Florida, say the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to require that all Americans carry insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

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."

 

[daveman]

It appears that multiple people in this thread give a damn enough to express a willingness to openly discuss the constitutional issues, which is more than I can say for you.

Not much point discussing it, really, when the Left says "The Constitution means whatever we say it means!" 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.

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."

 

[daveman]

Notice that all you've done is launch a personal attack. Your statement doesn't even attempt to address the issue at hand (and it's pretty obvious why).

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?

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.

 

[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."

If it comforts you to think so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not much point discussing it, really, when the Left says "The Constitution means whatever we say it means!" 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.

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."

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. But the Constitution is a document the Founders intended to be the framework within which the people would not be governed by an imperial or all powerful or dictatorial or authoritarian government, but rather the people would govern themselves. The purpose of the Federal government is to establish, secure, and defend our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

The idea of the people having freedom to choose what sort of society they wish to live in is anathema to many modern American liberals. The liberal too often does not seem to put faith and confidence in their fellow man who they see as too stupid and incompetent or erratic to govern themselves. Rather they put their faith and confidence in an authoritarian government of people like themselves and who are therefore mostly good and infallible. And the government, guided by pure liberal principles, will be trusted to decide what will be expected of us and what sort of rights and liberties we shall have.

And frankly folks, that kind of thinking scares the peewadden out of me. And the healthcare legislation that we are discussing in this thread is that kind of big, authoritarian government--government knows whats best for you than you know yourself--program that confiscates our freedoms, options, and resources and takes away our power to choose for ourselves what is best for us.

I did vote to repeal now. It won't happen unless the Republicans obtain a super majority in November, and that isn't going to happen. But at least we can keep the people advised and reminded of what is really important until we can take care of it.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[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. But the Constitution is a document the Founders intended to be the framework within which the people would not be governed by an imperial or all powerful or dictatorial or authoritarian government, but rather the people would govern themselves. The purpose of the Federal government is to establish, secure, and defend our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

The idea of the people having freedom to choose what sort of society they wish to live in is anathema to many modern American liberals. The liberal too often does not seem to put faith and confidence in their fellow man who they see as too stupid and incompetent or erratic to govern themselves. Rather they put their faith and confidence in an authoritarian government of people like themselves and who are therefore mostly good and infallible. And the government, guided by pure liberal principles, will be trusted to decide what will be expected of us and what sort of rights and liberties we shall have.

And frankly folks, that kind of thinking scares the peewadden out of me. And the healthcare legislation that we are discussing in this thread is that kind of big, authoritarian government--government knows whats best for you than you know yourself--program that confiscates our freedoms, options, and resources and takes away our power to choose for ourselves what is best for us.

I did vote to repeal now. It won't happen unless the Republicans obtain a super majority in November, and that isn't going to happen. But at least we can keep the people advised and reminded of what is really important until we can take care of it.

Well said.

 

[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.

Is the 10th Amendment not in the Lefty Constitution?

 

[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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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

 

[Greenbeard]

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?

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Not much point discussing it, really, when the Left says "The Constitution means whatever we say it means!" 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.

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