TwitterFacebook

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

Time for the wingnuts to smear and discredit George Washington
Health • Views: 27,677

Read the whole thing here. It’s not very long.

In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

[…]

This was written by Einer Elhauge, who is a professor at Harvard Law School. He joined an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the mandate.

Jump to bottom

330 comments

1 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:20:08am

I didn't know about the insurance for sea merchants. That's really interesting, good find.

2 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:34:04am

You just don't get it.

ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

3 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:48:24am

re: #2 Buck

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.

The US government isn't requiring non-citizens to buy insurance even though they have a heartbeat.

It is a choice to be a citizen, just like owning a car or ship. And that choice comes with responsibilities to yourself and other citizens, just like owning a car or ship.

4 alinuxguru  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:50:48am

Well we all know George Washington was a secret socialist.

5 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:51:09am

Twitter counter shows this one is hitting some nerves. I'm going to promote it to the front page.

6 jaunte  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:55:13am

re: #2 Buck

Health insurance mandates are simply a recognition that no one is opting out of the market for healthcare, so we're all in the same boat.

7 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:55:54am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

Raise everyone's taxes.

Give everyone with health insurance a tax write off/tax break equal to the amount raised.

This is completely and utterly legal, so why do we bicker about if getting the same effect through slightly different means is?

8 Kronocide  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:56:15am

re: #2 Buck

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

It is relevant. Just because one is a choice (car, boat), and another isn't (being alive), does not make it irrelevant. It makes it different, not irrelevant.

9 dragonfire1981  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:56:57am

I have never understood Americans bitter resistance to single payer. As a Canadian now living in America, it baffles me even more.

10 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:57:08am

My issue is: discussing this in terms of insurance obfuscates the core issue of healthcare. Single payer/government provided healthcare was off the table from the start (why?), and so Obama went with a plan that was almost identical to Republican proposed alternatives to Hillary care in the 90s and had actually been implemented by Romney himself in Massachusetts.

Now we're discussing the plan's constitutionality (and, having not read the arguments in depth, feel like it could likely go either way). In the meanwhile, a generation of Americans spends their life fearing medical issues not because of bodily harm, but because an extended hospital stay comes with almost total bankruptcy. This in the richest country in history.

11 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:57:15am

re: #7 jamesfirecat

It's semi-ironic that the last desperate gasp of the GOP against reforming our healthcare system is to say that we shouldn't be involving the private sector like this.

Their argument is almost perfectly framed to, if they knock this down, set up single-payer health insurance.

12 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:57:36am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

Any comment on the law that required people to buy firearms, or are you just going to sit back and pretend as if you nailed it?

13 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:58:50am

Oh wow.

In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington.

So, how is that not absolute precedent?

14 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:59:44am

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the constitutionality of the mandate, which could have been implemented in a much much better manner, but the more I've thought about it, the more I dislike it. It's just a crappy solution that seems to further ties us to our current utterly broken system. I mean, there's a reason this was the right-wing alternative two decades ago.

15 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 10:59:54am

re: #12 Oblivious Troll

Any comment on the law that required people to buy firearms, or are you just going to sit back and pretend as if you nailed it?

//Clearly only the solution to get out from under this government tyranny is to maim yourself so you're no longer "able bodied" that or get a sex change so you're no longer a man, that'll show em!

16 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:00:28am

re: #13 Obdicut

Oh wow.

So, how is that not absolute precedent?

Nobody is forcing you to be able-bodied...

17 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:00:28am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

By virtue of having a heartbeat you are automatically in need of health care at some point in your life.

18 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:00:28am

re: #9 dragonfire1981

I have never understood Americans bitter resistance to single payer. As a Canadian now living in America, it baffles me even more.

As a Martian now living in Canada I have to agree.

19 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:01:15am

re: #13 Obdicut

Oh wow.

So, how is that not absolute precedent?

It's a choice to be a man too. I'm taking a trip to Trinidad! ///

20 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:01:41am

When you buy whole hog into the commerce clause, you clearly dilute and weaken the enumerated powers. The argument is how much of that is constitutional. Plus the mandate to buy guns or insurance for seamen never had a constitutional challenge, so we do not really have a great example there.

Mandate to buy guns? LOL!
Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right? /// Just kidding. But that illustrates how our feelings on mandates will vary by the mandate itself. But that's not a constitution issue. It's a personal political beliefs issue.

The idea that there is no legitimate question to this is ridiculous. It's not obvious or clear how this should go.

But let's ask ourselves what benefits do enumerated powers provide, and how much do we want to reduce them? Will some argue these and the second amendment should go as anarchisms?

21 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:02:57am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right?

I am, yes, if there's a need for it. Is there a need for it? Like if we were facing imminent invasion, I'd be fine with it.

22 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:03:06am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

When you buy whole hog into the commerce clause, you clearly dilute and weaken the enumerated powers. The argument is how much of that is constitutional. Plus the mandate to buy guns or insurance for seamen never had a constitutional challenge, so we do not really have a great example there.

Mandate to buy guns? LOL!
Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right? /// Just kidding. But that illustrates how our feelings on mandates will vary by the mandate itself. But that's not a constitution issue. It's a personal political beliefs issue.

The idea that there is no legitimate question to this is ridiculous. It's not obvious or clear how this should go.

But let's ask ourselves what benefits do enumerated powers provide, and how much do we want to reduce them? Will some argue these and the second amendment should go as anarchisms?

I`m still stuck on armed semen.

23 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:03:11am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

When you buy whole hog into the commerce clause, you clearly dilute and weaken the enumerated powers. The argument is how much of that is constitutional. Plus the mandate to buy guns or insurance for seamen never had a constitutional challenge, so we do not really have a great example there.

Mandate to buy guns? LOL!
Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right? /// Just kidding. But that illustrates how our feelings on mandates will vary by the mandate itself. But that's not a constitution issue. It's a personal political beliefs issue.

The idea that there is no legitimate question to this is ridiculous. It's not obvious or clear how this should go.

But let's ask ourselves what benefits do enumerated powers provide, and how much do we want to reduce them? Will some argue these and the second amendment should go as anarchisms?

Raise everyone's taxes.

You get a tax break if you have health insurance.

Is that legal?

If it is why not?

If it is legal why isn't the mandate when it has the exact same end result?

24 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:03:14am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

Maybe just a teeny little bit relevent?

(Teeny bit?)

25 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:03:20am

re: #9 dragonfire1981

the resistance is the result of a carefully built up resentment of some "other" mainly by the GOP over the years, this other is the "welfare queen" etc. And the argument is the same, "Why should I pay for them to have the same healthcare I work to get?" Of course they miss the point and all the logical arguments.

26 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:04:11am

Here's the text of the 1798 Act for an individual mandate. Makes for a quite enlightening reading, and considering how close to the founding of the nation (and how many Framers were involved in the process), they knew or had reason to know what would pass constitutional muster and what wouldn't - and that this fit within the catchall health and welfare provision under Art. 1, Sec. 8.

BTW, I think this would make for interesting conversation in its own right: Also from the professor:

In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them.

A Glock in every pot. /

27 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:04:11am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

Raise everyone taxes.

You get a tax break if you have health insurance.

Is that legal?

If it is why not?

If it is legal why isn't the mandate when it has the exact same end result?

Yes, there is very little question that would be constitutional. Why isn't that how it was done? That's a damn good question.

28 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:04:39am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

Raise everyone taxes.

You get a tax break if you have health insurance.

Is that legal?

If it is why not?

If it is legal why isn't the mandate when it has the exact same end result?

The constitutionality of tax and benefit is long settled.

29 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:04:52am

re: #15 jamesfirecat

//Clearly only the solution to get out from under this government tyranny is to maim yourself so you're no longer "able bodied" that or get a sex change so you're no longer a man, that'll show em!

Lot of gender reassignment surgery going on in the late eighteenth century.

//

30 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:05:16am

re: #13 Obdicut

Oh wow.

So, how is that not absolute precedent?

Is lawmaking based on precedent? It's not a precedent for the court. It could be argued that since the framers were involved, it indicates their intent. But then, this would require an assumption that the framers would never act against their own constitution.

31 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:05:32am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

When you buy whole hog into the commerce clause, you clearly dilute and weaken the enumerated powers. The argument is how much of that is constitutional. Plus the mandate to buy guns or insurance for seamen never had a constitutional challenge, so we do not really have a great example there.

Mandate to buy guns? LOL!
Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right? /// Just kidding. But that illustrates how our feelings on mandates will vary by the mandate itself. But that's not a constitution issue. It's a personal political beliefs issue.

The idea that there is no legitimate question to this is ridiculous. It's not obvious or clear how this should go.

But let's ask ourselves what benefits do enumerated powers provide, and how much do we want to reduce them? Will some argue these and the second amendment should go as anarchisms?

Come on! The health care cost is 1/6 of our economy. Buying a gun or not, does not affect the economic health of this country. No one is saying there should be no limits to the commerce clause. But this, and the broccoli argument is ridiculous.

32 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:05:50am

re: #27 Simply Sarah

Yes, there is very little question that would be constitutional. Why isn't that how it was done? That's a damn good question.

Because the Democratic Party is like the nerd in class with thick glasses who while playing basketball runs into the pole supporting the whoop hard enough to leave him sterile, well meaning but hopelessly inept.

(And I say that as a life long democrat)

33 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:05:53am

re: #14 Simply Sarah

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the constitutionality of the mandate, which could have been implemented in a much much better manner, but the more I've thought about it, the more I dislike it. It's just a crappy solution that seems to further ties us to our current utterly broken system. I mean, there's a reason this was the right-wing alternative two decades ago.

Indeed. It's a terrible solution that doesn't fix much at all. The greatest value it has is to get Americans used to the idea of having health insurance, instead of literally dying because extremely rich corporations tell them it's better for them.

34 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:05:58am

re: #25 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance

the resistance is the result of a carefully built up resentment of some "other" mainly by the GOP over the years, this other is the "welfare queen" etc. And the argument is the same, "Why should I pay for them to have the same healthcare I work to get?" Of course they miss the point and all the logical arguments.

Hilariously, you pay for it anyway, except it's more expensive in the current model. It's MUCH cheaper to have ready access to preventative care vs. relying on emergency rooms to take care of suddenly critical issues that have lingered for a while.

It's this same lack of foresight that applies to infrastructure projects (ahem, christie). "I DON'T WANNA PAY FOR THIS, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME NA NA NA NA NA NA" And then, 5-10 years down the line, the bill comes due anyway, and you would have been better off just paying in advance.

35 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:06:01am

re: #28 Daniel Ballard

Seriously dude, and I think I speak for a lot of people that you're wrong about, while I think most times I'd think a law mandating the purchase of a gun to be stupid and ill-advised, I wouldn't think it was unconstitutional.

36 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:06:06am

re: #28 Daniel Ballard

The constitutionality of tax and benefit is long settled.

If it is legal why isn't the mandate when it has the exact same end result?

37 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:06:33am

This happened:

38 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:06:46am

So why is it constitutional to mandate that hospitals treat people in need of care? Let's do away with that, then...

39 Altermite  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:06:49am

Some guy at the gym talked himself in a full circle recently regarding the mandate- he started out complaining, that as someone who takes care of himself, he doesn't want to buy it, but then pointed out that his mother, for example, wouldn't be able to afford it if the costs weren't socialized across healthier people like himself.

40 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:07:28am

re: #37 Charles Johnson

This happened:

To be fair, that also could be an extreme moonbat. /

41 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:08:10am

re: #40 Adam, Eve and Steve

To be fair, that also could be an extreme moonbat. /

Apparently Killgore Trout has taken to doing Twitter impersonations.

//

42 Charles Johnson  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:08:33am

I would have greatly preferred a single payer plan myself. I'm not that crazy about the mandate. It is amusing in a not-amusing way to see the GOP vilifying something that they themselves originally proposed, though.

43 Lidane  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:09:50am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Pot, meet kettle. That's hilarious coming from you.

44 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:09:58am

re: #42 Charles Johnson

I would have greatly preferred a single payer plan myself. I'm not that crazy about the mandate. It is amusing in a not-amusing way to see the GOP vilifying something that they themselves originally proposed, though.

Evidently you can back a policy for over a decade without ever bothering to ask yourself if it was constitutional or not, who knew?

45 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:10:14am

How do people feel about this contention:

"Resolved, every citizen of the United States should have affordable access to basic healthcare, as well as the expectation of care in the event of a major injury and/or chronic illness"

I feel this is the core open debate of our time, and yet we're stuck arguing it's application (mandate vs single payer).

46 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:10:31am

re: #34 EastSider

Hilariously, you pay for it anyway, except it's more expensive in the current model. It's MUCH cheaper to have ready access to preventative care vs. relying on emergency rooms to take care of suddenly critical issues that have lingered for a while.

It's this same lack of foresight that applies to infrastructure projects (ahem, christie). "I DON'T WANNA PAY FOR THIS, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME NA NA NA NA NA NA" And then, 5-10 years down the line, the bill comes due anyway, and you would have been better off just paying in advance.

Pretty much. It's why you hear all the stories about communities complaining about how there are so many water main breaks and how the system should be fixed, but once you tell them it'll cost them a few cents or dollars more a month, they suddenly become much less interested.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:11:00am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

Mandate to buy guns? LOL!
Okay so everyone who is for this medical insurance mandate would be perfectly comfortable with that coming back right? /// Just kidding. But that illustrates how our feelings on mandates will vary by the mandate itself. But that's not a constitution issue. It's a personal political beliefs issue.

Sure. If we actually had a functioning militia in which all able-bodied adults were required to serve, I would consider a mandate to maintain appropriate equipment reasonable. They do it in Switzerland...as wingnuts who hate the healthcare mandate never tire of pointing out, because the idea of everyone having to own a Sig makes them horny. (I believe, however, that you don't have to buy the guns yourself in Switzerland, they let you keep your goverment-issued ones from military service for militia use. But that would just be socialism.)

But the question here is not our 'feelings' on mandates. As you say, they will vary, according to other beliefs. The point here is that we have an example of perhaps the greatest of the Founders being quite comfortable signing into law something that some people have insisted is entirely unConstitutional and an abomination. That doesn't settle our present discussion, but it is quite interesting.

48 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:11:08am

re: #31 blueraven

Come on! The health care cost is 1/6 of our economy. Buying a gun or not, does not affect the economic health of this country. No one is saying there should be no limits to the commerce clause. But this, and the broccoli argument is ridiculous.

Whether we have a Federal based individual mandate is not essential to the economy. A good medical care system is. Many would argue for single payer. Your point does not undermine their point at all.

49 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:11:17am

re: #38 Oblivious Troll

So why is it constitutional to mandate that hospitals treat people in need of care? Let's do away with that, then...

Don't give them ideas. I'm pretty sure that is next.

50 Lidane  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:11:40am

re: #42 Charles Johnson

I would have greatly preferred a single payer plan myself. I'm not that crazy about the mandate. It is amusing in a not-amusing way to see the GOP vilifying something that they themselves originally proposed, though.

Quite frankly, I hope this kerfuffle about the mandate leads to single payer.

And it's hysterical to see the GOP tying itself in knots over something that they supported for years just because President Obama supports it. What a bunch of losers.

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:12:02am

re: #29 SanFranciscoZionist

Lot of gender reassignment surgery going on in the late eighteenth century.

//

Although, there was the Chevalier d'Eon, which is one hell of story in and of itself.

52 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:12:37am

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure. If we actually had a functioning militia in which all able-bodied adults were required to serve, I would consider a mandate to maintain appropriate equipment reasonable. They do it in Switzerland...as wingnuts who hate the healthcare mandate never tire of pointing out, because the idea of everyone having to own a Sig makes them horny. (I believe, however, that you don't have to buy the guns yourself in Switzerland, they let you keep your goverment-issued ones from military service for militia use. But that would just be socialism.)

This is the best paragraph I've read on LGF in a very long time.

53 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:13:05am

re: #50 Lidane

Quite frankly, I hope this kerfuffle about the mandate leads to single payer.

And it's hysterical to see the GOP tying itself in knots over something that they supported for years just because President Obama supports it. What a bunch of losers.

It almost makes them seem....god what's that word?.....oh, right: disingenuous. But that couldn't possibly be right, not for the party of Eisenhower and Reagan anyway.

54 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:13:28am

In addition, the Milita Acts of 1792 required all free adult male citizens to buy a musket or "firelock" (rifle) with bayonet in the standardized caliber of .69", or 18 gauge, provide at least 24 cartridges of ball and powder as well as flints and all the other sundries needed for militia service out of pocket. They were also required to attend drill twice a year. Militia officers were also required to buy, at their own expense, a sword.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

What is different, legally, about this mandate (and an expensive one too) on every adult male and the insurance mandate now? I certainly don't see any.

(whoops, already posted. Still good precedent)

55 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:14:02am

re: #30 Adam, Eve and Steve

Is lawmaking based on precedent? It's not a precedent for the court. It could be argued that since the framers were involved, it indicates their intent. But then, this would require an assumption that the framers would never act against their own constitution.

Legally, this may not mean very much, but it sure is going to be funny to see the wingnutter reaction. Because a lot of their stupider crap does involve the assumption that everything The Founders did was pure, noble, and more importantly, for ever and ever and ever, no context allowed.

56 palomino  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:14:37am

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

How do you feel about Mass. having an individual mandate? What if 10 or 15 of our larger, more progressive states adopted a similar plan? Then nearly half the country would be living under the supposed tyranny of Obamacare/Romneycare.

The Supremes will strike it down 5-4. The Court is now nearly as politicized as our other two govt. branches.

57 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:14:41am

re: #50 Lidane

Quite frankly, I hope this kerfuffle about the mandate leads to single payer.

And it's hysterical to see the GOP tying itself in knots over something that they supported for years just because President Obama supports it. What a bunch of losers.

Sadly, that's extremely unlikely. All the calls against "SOCIALISM!" have had the desired impact. And with one of the major parties currently attempting to end the "single payer for older people" plan that is Medicare (Well, they want to make it not be single payer anymore), I can't see single payer for all getting anywhere any time soon.

58 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:14:48am

re: #54 William Barnett-Lewis

Can you be drafted as an officer?

59 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:14:58am

re: #35 Obdicut

How much are you going to like that precedent when some future GOP administration wants to force something you oppose based on this instance?

The point I'm most trying to make is whether you want a mandate on this in particular is a very separate discussion than the enumerated powers issue. Tax and benefit would solve this via single payer and avoid this dangerous precedent.

Can you show me where the gun mandate survived a challenge based on enumerated powers? Is it did I would have to agree. if not, not so much.

60 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:16:05am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

The enumerated powers are limitations, but the catchall health and welfare provision can be read to empower Congress to enact legislation providing for the general health and welfare of the nation, up to and including the imposition of health care provisions such as included in the health care reform acts. It certainly has precedent.

61 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:17:08am

re: #58 Obdicut

Can you be drafted as an officer?

The militia companies would, at the first meeting of the year, elect their officers. I believe 1 captain, 1 lieutenant and 1 adjutant was common but it's been awhile since I read those regulations.

62 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:17:18am

re: #59 Daniel Ballard

How much are you going to like that precedent when some future GOP administration wants to force something you oppose based on this instance?

I'll live with it, because I see the use of compelling a society to action in important ways.

The point I'm most trying to make is whether you want a mandate on this in particular is a very separate discussion than the enumerated powers issue. Tax and benefit would solve this via single payer and avoid this dangerous precedent.

I really don't find the precedent dangerous. I don't expect the constitution to help people pass laws that are wise or good. You can do all sorts of dumb-fuck stuff while still being absolutely constitutional. We're doing a lot of them.

The point of the Constitution is to balance the powers of the branches of government and protect the rights of the citizens. The government can really fuck people over without violating their rights, if rights are largely defined in terms of freedoms and not expectations.

63 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:17:31am

re: #50 Lidane

Quite frankly, I hope this kerfuffle about the mandate leads to single payer.

That would have avoided all this. In fact one can question the wisdom of signing this instead. As was widely done at the time.

64 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:18:14am

re: #62 Obdicut

And this tips the balance to the Feds big time, if upheld.

65 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:18:16am

re: #52 Renaissance_Man

This is the best paragraph I've read on LGF in a very long time.

Thank you for them kind words, but really?

66 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:18:18am

re: #30 Adam, Eve and Steve

Following the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the courts did have to test out some of the provisions in the Constitution because there were (and are and continue to be areas where one provision wasn't clear, ambiguous, or silent). The Court's role, after Marbury v. Madison was to give the court the power to review (judicial review).

67 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:19:27am

re: #54 William Barnett-Lewis

In addition, the Milita Acts of 1792 required all free adult male citizens to buy a musket or "firelock" (rifle) with bayonet in the standardized caliber of .69", or 18 gauge, provide at least 24 cartridges of ball and powder as well as flints and all the other sundries needed for militia service out of pocket. They were also required to attend drill twice a year. Militia officers were also required to buy, at their own expense, a sword.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

What is different, legally, about this mandate (and an expensive one too) on every adult male and the insurance mandate now? I certainly don't see any.

Were there any provisions for if a free adult male couldn't afford the necessary gun and ammo?

68 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:20:06am

re: #60 lawhawk

If you read those words that widely, banning cigarettes would have happened long ago if this was so though.

69 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:20:29am

re: #64 Daniel Ballard

And this tips the balance to the Feds big time, if upheld.

Raise taxes on everyone.

Give people a tax rebate if they buy product X.

This is constitutional.

I fail to see how striking down the mandate will prevent some future Republican President from creating his own "mandate" via the strategy above.

70 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:20:44am

re: #64 Daniel Ballard

And this tips the balance to the Feds big time, if upheld.

What power gets tipped? What has the government previously tried to do, and been denied, that was like this?

We live in a society where the federal government can draft people against their will to go fight and die in a foreign country, if the government votes for that war.

How can you think we can order our citizens to die for their country, but that purchasing healthcare is some bridge too far?

Unless, of course, you're against the constitutionality of the draft, too.

71 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:21:53am

re: #62 Obdicut


I really don't find the precedent dangerous.

Yeah I'm not sure I agree with that. Let's put on our 10 Gallon GOP Hats for a minute:

1) Screw this public transport system. Instead, we're just going to mandate that everyone buys a car.

2) Screw this green energy system. We are going to mandate that everyone buys coal power.

72 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:21:58am

re: #69 jamesfirecat

Mandates and tax then benefit are very different legally. Few would argue single payer is unconstitutional under enumerated powers. Instead we have this mess.

73 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:22:14am

If they'd had single payer that covered dental, back when George was a young man, he might have kept his own teeth.

///

74 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:22:52am

re: #64 Daniel Ballard

And this tips the balance to the Feds big time, if upheld.

Well, yes and no. It gets murky because there's little doubt that this sort of thing would be constitutional if done directly through the taxing power of Congress. So unless the Court wants to limit that as well, which would basically require them deeming the mandate a tax and then saying it wasn't allowed, it seems that even a broad ruling against the mandate would simply cut off one route to forcing the purchase of something. And this is a court that showed little concern about the power of the Feds when it comes to drug law.

75 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:23:01am

re: #72 Daniel Ballard

Mandates and tax then benefit are very different legally. Few would argue single payer is unconstitutional under enumerated powers. Instead we have this mess.

They are different legally, but they achieve the same end effect don't they?

If so how does the mandate give powers that a "tax then benefit" approach doesn't?

76 victor27  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:23:21am

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

When you buy whole hog into the commerce clause, you clearly dilute and weaken the enumerated powers.

That would be a serious misreading of the Constitution, especially since one of the enumerated powers is the 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.

...otherwise known as the Necessary and Proper Clause.

You're absolutely right that this is a political question, and not a Constitutional question. That has been the case since McCulloch v. Maryland and this quote:

"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

If you accept the fact that Congress has a legitimate interest in regulating commerce among the several states, it follows almost automatically that the insurance mandate is constitutional.

77 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:23:27am

re: #71 EastSider

Sure. Like I said, they can do all sorts of shit that really fucks people over, and it's constitutional. Listing bad things that can be done constitutionally would take forever.

For example, you can remove restrictions on polluters, allowing them to poison the environment and directly kill people.

78 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:23:45am

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank you for them kind words, but really?

"Yep! First one I've actually read in 5 years!"

79 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:24:23am

re: #76 victor27

Welcome, infrequent-poster-guy.

80 Lidane  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:24:34am

re: #63 Daniel Ballard

That would have avoided all this. In fact one can question the wisdom of signing this instead. As was widely done at the time.

A cynical part of me says that it was the plan all along. Sign the current bill, get people ginned up and howling about the mandate, then find a way to offer single payer as an alternative to it should the mandate get struck down. However, I'm enough of a realist to know that's not the case. They settled for the best they could get at the time and now we're having to work out the kinks through SCOTUS.

81 jaunte  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:25:33am

I can't see the GOP ever getting behind a mandate that every able-bodied minority in the country purchase a firearm.

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:25:51am

re: #72 Daniel Ballard

Mandates and tax then benefit are very different legally. Few would argue single payer is unconstitutional under enumerated powers. Instead we have this mess.

I'm going to argue with you on one point here--MANY would argue that single payer is unconstitutional under enumerated powers. Whether their arguments would be any good, or make sense, or not, doesn't change the fact that oh boy, yes, they would.

83 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:27:18am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Were there any provisions for if a free adult male couldn't afford the necessary gun and ammo?

None in the federal legislation. From what I've read, the poor guys would get handed whatever extras everyone had at hand. There were Brown Besses used in the Indian Wars in the Northwest Territories through the 1840's according to some things I've read, though I would have thought they'd been converted to cap lock at least.

84 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:28:01am

re: #70 Obdicut

What power gets tipped? What has the government previously tried to do, and been denied, that was like this?

We live in a society where the federal government can draft people against their will to go fight and die in a foreign country, if the government votes for that war.

How can you think we can order our citizens to die for their country, but that purchasing healthcare is some bridge too far?

Unless, of course, you're against the constitutionality of the draft, too.

Did you not hear the points Kennedy made on this?
I didn't write the enumerated powers, but the answer to your question is there in the constitution. They specifically have the power to raise armies for defense.

85 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:28:05am

re: #70 Obdicut

What power gets tipped? What has the government previously tried to do, and been denied, that was like this?

We live in a society where the federal government can draft people against their will to go fight and die in a foreign country, if the government votes for that war.

How can you think we can order our citizens to die for their country, but that purchasing healthcare is some bridge too far?

Unless, of course, you're against the constitutionality of the draft, too.

To be fair, Article 1 Section 8 does enumerate a broad range of powers for Congress in relationship to defense.

86 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:28:55am

re: #84 Daniel Ballard

Did you not hear the points Kennedy made on this?

Nope. You could go ahead and make them.

I didn't write the enumerated powers, but the answer to your question is there in the constitution. They specifically have the power to raise armies for defense.

That's not an answer. You can raise armies by paying for them. We have one right now raised like that, remember? An all-volunteer army.

87 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:29:53am

re: #86 Obdicut

Nope. You could go ahead and make them.

That's not an answer. You can raise armies by paying for them. We have one right now raised like that, remember? An all-volunteer army.

paid for with debt*

88 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:29:59am

re: #85 Simply Sarah

To be fair, Article 1 Section 8 does enumerate a broad range of powers for Congress in relationship to defense.

"Health of the citizens being paramount to the defense of the state, I hereby..." /

89 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:31:07am

re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist
Okay. true.
I'll stick to this then- "tax and benefit" which would underpin single payer is at least well established and tested.

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:31:15am

re: #86 Obdicut

That's not an answer. You can raise armies by paying for them. We have one right now raised like that, remember?

That's how Renaissance Florence did it. Of course, they also maintained militias as well, hence the famous, "Then we will ring our bells," reponse to Charles of France.

91 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:31:55am

re: #88 Adam, Eve and Steve

"Health of the citizens being paramount to the defense of the state, I hereby..." /

Hey, all I was saying is that defense policy is probably not the best thing to compare it to. :P

92 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:33:35am

re: #91 Simply Sarah

Hey, all I was saying is that defense policy is probably not the best thing to compare it to. :P

And yet we have unwittingly found the completely constitutional way! ///

93 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:33:57am

I can't really imagine anything more relevant to the health of a country than the health of a country. If there was some poison suddenly introduced into the ecosystem, if there was a massive virus outbreak, we'd expect the government to address it. And yet, somehow, we don't expect the government to address all the various viruses and diseases that kill us every year-- even when it's in the hundreds of thousands. It's a perfectly natural function of government to safeguard the health of its citizens.

94 ReamWorks SKG  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:34:10am

Maybe this is how the Democrats can get Republican support for a health care bill: combine it with a mandate that everyone have a gun!

95 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:34:50am

re: #86 Obdicut

You are asking me for answers found in the constitution. Why? Are you that unfamiliar with it? And I will refer you to the arguments Kennedy made as his, not mine. just some basic background on the subject at hand.

from CNN
However, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the federal government "is telling an individual he has the obligation he must act" and purchase insurance.

"That threatens to change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way," Kennedy said.

Oral arguments can be found here.

96 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:35:31am

re: #1 SpaceJesus

I didn't know about the insurance for sea merchants. That's really interesting, good find.

re: #5 Charles Johnson

Twitter counter shows this one is hitting some nerves. I'm going to promote it to the front page.

From Twitter it came, and to Twitter it shall return.

Garance Franke-Ruta retweeted Ryan Lizza's posting of it. I follow Garance because she tweets all the good stuff that Gus misses. (I know I said you were the only one yesterday, Gus, but I was exaggerating.)

97 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:35:35am

re: #92 Adam, Eve and Steve

And yet we have unwittingly found the completely constitutional way! ///

No! Madness and Hirabayashi and Korematsu that way lies!

98 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:37:22am

re: #48 Daniel Ballard

Whether we have a Federal based individual mandate is not essential to the economy. A good medical care system is. Many would argue for single payer. Your point does not undermine their point at all.

Well, show me another plan on the table and we will discuss it.
Whether this law is the best way or not, does not undermine the position that the mandate is constitutional.

99 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:37:30am

[Link: edition.cnn.com...]

Newark mayor rushes into burning home to save neighbor

100 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:39:24am

re: #93 Obdicut

I can't really imagine anything more relevant to the health of a country than the health of a country. If there was some poison suddenly introduced into the ecosystem, if there was a massive virus outbreak, we'd expect the government to address it. And yet, somehow, we don't expect the government to address all the various viruses and diseases that kill us every year-- even when it's in the hundreds of thousands. It's a perfectly natural function of government to safeguard the health of its citizens.

yes, yes we need a healthy populace. But you seem to assume this is the only or best way to get there. I disagree as do advocates of state based mandates, or single payer, or strict utility style regulations. Any of which might get the job done if well executed. I'd rather have single payer next year than a mess like this now.

101 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:40:07am

re: #95 Daniel Ballard

You are asking me for answers found in the constitution. Why? Are you that unfamiliar with it?

Calm down and get off your high constitutional horse. Do you have an actual response to why the government couldn't pay for a volunteer army-- especially given that, you know, we do?

However, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the federal government "is telling an individual he has the obligation he must act" and purchase insurance.

Oh, those remarks? Yeah, i'm familiar with them, and I disagree with them. I don't feel it fundamentally changes the relationship. I think he's wrong, for one of the reasons I just observed. Even if you're just going to make the purely legalistic argument that a conscripted army is constitutional because raising an army is a constitutional power, that doesn't change the fact that conscripting someone is a way worse violation of their freedom than is mandating that they purchase health insurance.

102 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:41:04am

re: #94 ReamWorks SKG

Maybe this is how the Democrats can get Republican support for a health care bill: combine it with a mandate that everyone have a gun!

heh. Single payer and an issue of a weapon paid for by federal monies to every adult citizen.

103 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:41:18am

re: #100 Daniel Ballard

yes, yes we need a healthy populace. But you seem to assume this is the only or best way to get there.

No, I don't. Please show me a single thing that in any way shows an assumption this is the only way to get there.

I haven't said anything remotely like that.

All I have said is that mandates to purchase things of national importance do not seem unconstitutional to me, and I think it's a legitimate power for government to have. It's open to abuse, but any power that can achieve anything of importance can also fuck shit up.

104 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:44:21am

re: #103 Obdicut

No, I don't. Please show me a single thing that in any way shows an assumption this is the only way to get there.

I haven't said anything remotely like that.

All I have said is that mandates to purchase things of national importance do not seem unconstitutional to me, and I think it's a legitimate power for government to have. Its open to abuse, but any power that can achieve anything of importance can also fuck shit up.

And might I add: This was the only politically practicable solution to the problem. It's not as if we had a choice of A, B, and C and selected B on it's merits. Rather we were forced to choose C because nothing else was possible to put into a law, politically.

105 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:46:21am

re: #100 Daniel Ballard

yes, yes we need a healthy populace. But you seem to assume this is the only or best way to get there. I disagree as do advocates of state based mandates, or single payer, or strict utility style regulations. Any of which might get the job done if well executed. I'd rather have single payer next year than a mess like this now.

You are stating an opinion or preference, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

106 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:47:17am

re: #101 Obdicut
"oh those comments'
Nice understatement. After all he's only a Supreme court justice.

anyway at least now you understand my point, agreeing or not. I'm not on a high horse I'm declining to get dragged into an argument quite aside from the E.P. issue points I'm trying to make. That point made is the enumerated powers issue. Not the general need for health care. This administration made a vey tough choice and signed a plan many agreed was unwise. Now those birds are coming home to roost. And because of that the whole edifice may fall. Start over.

107 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:47:45am

re: #104 EastSider

And might I add: This was the only politically practicable solution to the problem. It's not as if we had a choice of A, B, and C and selected B on it's merits. Rather we were forced to choose C because nothing else was possible to put into a law, politically.

This. What we've got is a bit of a mess, but we didn't have too many other options open. "Wait for another couple of administrations and see if things have got better" isn't appealing.

108 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:49:57am

re: #42 Charles Johnson

What is it about the mandate that you do not like?

109 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:50:20am

re: #106 Daniel Ballard

"oh those comments'
Nice understatement. After all he's only a Supreme court justice.

anyway at least now you understand my point, agreeing or not. I'm not on a high horse I'm declining to get dragged into an argument quite aside from the E.P. issue points I'm trying to make. That point made is the enumerated powers issue. Not the general need for health care. This administration made a vey tough choice and signed a plan many agreed was unwise. Now those birds are coming home to roost. And because of that the whole edifice may fall. Start over.

From what? Seriously, you think if this fails, the GOP will concede the fight and agree to support single-payer? Or that, even in the most optimistic of electoral outcomes in November, the Democrats will hold the votes necessary to pass such a bill without a repeat of the debacle we saw in '09?

110 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:50:45am

re: #106 Daniel Ballard

Nice understatement. After all he's only a Supreme court justice.

Well, no. It's that I thought you were referring to other comments he'd made specifically about the early congress mandating that people buy guns. Thus "Those comments".

anyway at least now you understand my point, agreeing or not.

Not really, no. I don't see how you've addressed the fact that the government already has a massive ability to dictate the lives of its citizens-- through the draft-- and how that shows that simply mandating someone purchase something doesn't change the relationship between government and citizen-- especially when exactly the same effect on the citizen's lives could be effected through a tax.

That point made is the enumerated powers issue.

And I don't see anything in the enumerated powers that would indicate congress doesn't have the right to mandate people purchase things. Evidently, 14 of the framers also didn't, because they voted for a law that mandated people purchase things.

111 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:51:38am

re: #106 Daniel Ballard

"oh those comments'
Nice understatement. After all he's only a Supreme court justice.

anyway at least now you understand my point, agreeing or not. I'm not on a high horse I'm declining to get dragged into an argument quite aside from the E.P. issue points I'm trying to make. That point made is the enumerated powers issue. Not the general need for health care. This administration made a vey tough choice and signed a plan many agreed was unwise. Now those birds are coming home to roost. And because of that the whole edifice may fall. Start over.

When? Really, when do we we "start over"?
Do you thing a single payer would pass?
It will be a decade or more...the republicans offer nothing.

112 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:51:58am

re: #108 Daniel Ballard

What is it about the mandate that you do not like?

The fact that its constitutionality is questionable (or so you keep trying to convince us) for one, the fact that it still relies on the free market not jacking up the costs of a good for which there is no alternative is another.

113 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:52:24am

re: #109 Targetpractice

From what? Seriously, you think if this fails, the GOP will concede the fight and agree to support single-payer? Or that, even in the most optimistic of electoral outcomes in November, the Democrats will hold the votes necessary to pass such a bill without a repeat of the debacle we saw in '09?

I'm ignoring the partisan factors in this question of the appropriate balance of powers. Partisan desires ebb, flow, change. the balance of powers is a far larger loner lasting issue.

114 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:53:12am

re: #113 Daniel Ballard

I'm ignoring the partisan factors in this question of the appropriate balance of powers. Partisan desires ebb, flow, change. the balance of powers is a far larger loner lasting issue.

So you wish to pass up a good plan today for a perfect plan in some distant future?

115 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:53:27am

You know, everything would be solved if you would let Canada annex the US as the 11th province.

116 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:54:45am

re: #115 Born Young

You know, everything would be solved if you would let Canada annex the US as the 11th province.

But then wouldn't we all have to learn french or something?

117 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:54:55am

re: #110 Obdicut

So all those legal experts, attorneys and judges were just wrong to conclude there may well be a enumerated [powers problem with the mandate? I find it a legit point that well deserves review at the highest level.

118 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:56:06am

re: #115 Born Young

You know, everything would be solved if you would let Canada annex the US as the 11th province.

And then we'd get to see Harper tossed out as being a CINO.
/

119 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:56:32am

re: #117 Daniel Ballard

So all those legal experts, attorneys and judges were just wrong to conclude there may well be a enumerated [powers problem with the mandate? I find it a legit point that well deserves review at the highest level.

Would you accept "the mandate" as constitutional if instead of taxing people for not buying a product, everyone got taxed more and those who bought the product got a tax rebate?

Because that second one is totally legal and has the exact same economic impact doesn't it?

120 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:56:46am

re: #116 jamesfirecat

But then wouldn't we all have to learn french or something?

We take it in school but it's not mandatory.

121 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:57:31am

re: #114 Targetpractice

I don't agree this is a good plan. It certainly has plenty of critics on both sides of the partisan spectrum. Me, heck I loved the California plan as espoused by our former governor. But that failed.

What I would actually like to see is health care get regulated like electricity and water. Strictly and well managed. I happen to think that would do it. But that's been off the table so long it's irrelevant.

122 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 11:57:54am

re: #117 Daniel Ballard

So all those legal experts, attorneys and judges were just wrong to conclude there may well be a enumerated [powers problem with the mandate? I find it a legit point that well deserves review at the highest level.

I believe that they're wrong, yes. And so do many other experts, attorneys, and judges. This is an article about one such person.

The case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, so that is review at the highest level. Unfortunately, some of the people on the Supreme Court I consider to be extremely discontinuous in their view of the powers of the federal government, and from what they've said so far are taking a highly political read on the law. Scalia referencing a provision that wasn't even in the law, but was something that the right-wing media made a big stink about it-- that was embarrassing for him.

123 kirkspencer  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:00:24pm

re: #122 Obdicut

I believe that they're wrong, yes. And so do many other experts, attorneys, and judges. This is an article about one such person.

The case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, so that is review at the highest level. Unfortunately, some of the people on the Supreme Court I consider to be extremely discontinuous in their view of the powers of the federal government, and from what they've said so far are taking a highly political read on the law. Scalia referencing a provision that wasn't even in the law, but was something that the right-wing media made a big stink about it-- that was embarrassing for him.

Scalia lost his veneer of professionalism in my eyes several years back. But the jaw-dropper in this case was his question of whether he, or perhaps his clerks, would be required to read the entire law. (sorry, "all 2700 pages.").

while it was played for a laugh, I would still have liked hearing, "well, yes. after all, it is what you're judging today."

124 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:00:47pm

re: #121 Daniel Ballard

Electricity and water don't have a history of being strictly regulated. See: California, 1996. They have a tendency, when privately owned, to go through cycles of deregulation, followed by predatory pricing and crisis, then regulation, then deregulation again, etc.

125 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:01:10pm

re: #122 Obdicut

Well I'm far from alone in objection to the Federal based individual mandate to purchase, yet I do agree we need to do much better than what we have. And I strongly disagree that Kennedy was thinking politics when he pointed out the central problem.

126 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:01:14pm

re: #121 Daniel Ballard

I don't agree this is a good plan. It certainly has plenty of critics on both sides of the partisan spectrum. Me, heck I loved the California plan as espoused by our former governor. But that failed.

What I would actually like to see is health care get regulated like electricity and water. Strictly and well managed. I happen to think that would do it. But that's been off the table so long it's irrelevant.

I don't agree much that it's a good plan either, but it's the best we're gonna get in the present political environment. We can't afford to keep kicking this can down the road, hoping that the winds of political favor change so that we can pass the dream plan we really want.

Shit, you've got Republicans out there who are willing to fight with every weapon down to their very eye teeth to dismantle Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security, programs that have been around longer than most of us have been alive. You really think, a presidency or two from now, that they're gonna suddenly decide that a single-payer system is a good idea?

127 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:02:23pm

re: #2 Buck

Oh Buck. Oh my dear Buck. This is fight is about federal vs. state powers, get with the program.

128 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:02:54pm

re: #122 Obdicut

I believe that they're wrong, yes. And so do many other experts, attorneys, and judges. This is an article about one such person.

The case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, so that is review at the highest level. Unfortunately, some of the people on the Supreme Court I consider to be extremely discontinuous in their view of the powers of the federal government, and from what they've said so far are taking a highly political read on the law. Scalia referencing a provision that wasn't even in the law, but was something that the right-wing media made a big stink about it-- that was embarrassing for him.

At least Scalia was showing signs of life. Like I said the other day, you could have replaced Thomas with a wax dummy during oral arguments and nobody would have noticed until it started melting. Nobody's foolish enough to believe he's not already made up his mind.

129 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:03:12pm

re: #124 Obdicut

Right deregulation screwed the system in Ca. Hence my point for a strict regime. Medical care has a zero history of a mandate. At least utilities provide a model to build on with remarkable success at distribution of electricity at affordable rates.

130 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:03:47pm

re: #125 Daniel Ballard

Since I never said you were alone in objecting, I wonder why you mention it.

And I strongly disagree that Kennedy was thinking politics when he pointed out the central problem.

Any statement about the nature of the relationship between the government and the citizen is going to be a political one. But I agree that Kennedy wasn't being rather obviously partisan in the way Scalia was. However, I still think he's wrong-- not wrong to consider the point she brought up as objections, but wrong if he doesn't also bring up their counterpoints, as I have.

And since he doesn't appear to have, I think he's reached a mistaken conclusion that this changes the relationship between government and citizen.

131 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:04:51pm

re: #106 Daniel Ballard

Not that justices on the court are or have been infalliable (or worse - outright bigots, racists, etc.). See Plessy v. Ferguson's majority opinion. Harlan happened to be right that Plessy (and the Civil Rights Cases) were unconstitutional restrictions, but he upheld anti-miscegnation laws in Pace v. Alabama. 2 out of three isn't bad, but the he's still wrong on the third, and he was in the minority in the other two - and it took Brown to overrule Plessy decades later.

132 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:05:21pm

re: #129 Daniel Ballard

Right deregulation screwed the system in Ca. Hence my point for a strict regime.

How can a strict regime mandate that insurance companies price their products so people can afford them? Are you saying the government ought to price-control the way that they do with electricity-- force the insurance companies to sell at certain rates?

So it's okay to force people to sell things at a certain price, but not to mandate they buy things?

133 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:05:30pm

So are people buying that the guy who passed an assault weapon ban in MA is the best person to protect gun rights?

134 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:06:25pm

Take the Supreme Court Justices out, watch some football, get them hammered, get them laid, then have a quiet talk with them and make them a deal they can't refuse.
re: #123 kirkspencer

Scalia lost his veneer of professionalism in my eyes several years back. But the jaw-dropper in this case was his question of whether he, or perhaps his clerks, would be required to read the entire law. (sorry, "all 2700 pages.").

while it was played for a laugh, I would still have liked hearing, "well, yes. after all, it is what you're judging today."

Aren't they being paid big bucks to read them?

135 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:08:10pm

re: #134 Born Young

Take the Supreme Court Justices out, watch some football, get them hammered, get them laid, then have a quite talk with them and make them a deal they can't refuse.

Sounds like an episode of House of Lies.

136 Targetpractice  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:10:13pm

re: #129 Daniel Ballard

Right deregulation screwed the system in Ca. Hence my point for a strict regime. Medical care has a zero history of a mandate. At least utilities provide a model to build on with remarkable success at distribution of electricity at affordable rates.

Over government built, government maintained, and government controlled power lines. If those lines were turned over to private ownership, you think the rates would remain so affordable? Especially as efforts to build a "smart grid" move forward?

137 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:11:03pm

re: #133 Oblivious Troll

So are people buying that the guy who passed an assault weapon ban in MA is the best person to protect gun rights?

Looking at some of the nuttier webs I know of, I'd say, no. There are a whole lot of them who convinced that the one is as bad as the other. Hopefully they'll just stay home.

138 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:11:41pm

re: #136 Targetpractice

Over government built, government maintained, and government controlled power lines. If those lines were turned over to private ownership, you think the rates would remain so affordable? Especially as efforts to build a "smart grid" move forward?

power companies are the ones investing in smart grid today. it's an interesting model--its a commodity (like health care) that everybody needs, however unlikely healthcare, you won't see bankruptcy inducing price spikes.

139 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:12:01pm

re: #123 kirkspencer

Actually, he does have a point with the 2,700 pages and what is or isn't constitutional. That could be a tell by Scalia that he'd kick it back to Congress to sort out the various provisions that are or aren't constitutional and to fix those that the court would potentially deem unconstitutional rather than striking down the whole thing or having to read the entire thing and doing the Legislature's job for them.

But as the law professor's posting indicates (and was included in his amicus brief), the Founders were issuing mandates on health care from the earliest days of the nation, so there's plenty of precedent for Congress to act. If he's truly acting as a strict constructionist and reading the plain meaning of the law - plainly the Founders couldn't be wrong when they allowed mandates just a few years after they wrote and approved the Constitution as the law of the land. Scalia couldn't then claim (well, he could, but it wouldn't be supported by the history in this instance) that he's acting according to the Founders' intent.

140 Simply Sarah  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:12:49pm

re: #128 Targetpractice

At least Scalia was showing signs of life. Like I said the other day, you could have replaced Thomas with a wax dummy during oral arguments and nobody would have noticed until it started melting. Nobody's foolish enough to believe he's not already made up his mind.

In all fairness to Thomas, he, unlike Scalia and Kennedy, actually dissented in Gonzales v. Raich. When it comes to the Commerce Clause, he actually tends to be fairly consistent in holding it as being rather narrow.

141 EastSider  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:13:36pm

re: #139 lawhawk

Random newbie question: How important is "founder's intent" vs "established precedent" in constitutional law?

142 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:15:26pm

Doubt the Founding Fathers intended to allow government to shove it's hand up your ass after picking you up for protesting. Not so sure this argument would mean much to this court...

143 Cap'n Magic  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:17:12pm

I suspect the Supremes may whack some parts of act, but if they wholesale veto the whole act then a whole lot of previous decisions regarding the Commerce clause could get unwinded-like the above act for sailors. Which does raise an interesting point-how many US-flagged ships today currently provide health insurance to their employees? Or are they getting around that law by flying a foreign flag?

144 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:21:17pm
145 KingKenrod  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:23:58pm

re: #144 Gus

ICYMI. Got another one!

Second White Nationalist Writing for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch

About 10 years ago when it was CBS Market Watch it was my favorite financial news site. It's totally useless now.

146 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:24:17pm

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Why don't you change your handle to "I don't get it"?

147 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:24:28pm

re: #141 EastSider

The general principle is stare decisis - whether the current case is following earlier precedent. When discussing a new subject that hasn't been addressed by an earlier Supreme Court decision, the justices will look at the appellate court treatment, legislative histories, and historical documents to determine their positions. Founders' intent may come into play, if the justice thinks that they are splitting from earlier precedent or there is no precedent to go by and the legislative history is mixed or nonexistent and there's little else to work with.

In this case, Founders' intent would seem to support a health care mandate (much to the chagrin of the right wing, which had likely been hoping that people would ignore that earlier Congresses had imposed such mandates).

148 Four More Tears  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:25:23pm

Silly War on Women fantasy...

Pete Hoekstra On Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: 'That Thing Is A Nuisance'

"Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that's really the thing that's hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create -- that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn't be the law," replied Hoekstra.

149 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:25:28pm

re: #146 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

Why don't you change your handle to "I don't get it"?

How about "What the Buck..."?

150 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:26:37pm
151 Neutral President  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:32:24pm

After a few Lizards mentioned Germany's health care system, I did some research on it and I'm sold. I wish could get that here. Unfortunately it seems like we are dead set on keeping an anarcho-capitalist mess or pushing for Canada style single payer.

152 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:32:53pm
153 b_Snark  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:34:45pm

re: #152 Gus

Cool looking building.

154 Ming  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:35:15pm

What's really sad about the current controversy about the health insurance mandate is that the mandate was a valiant attempt by President Obama to achieve universal coverage without resorting to socialized medicine. The mandate is the only way that I know of to bring our health-insurance companies along as we achieve universal coverage.

I believe that universal coverage for America means adding at least 30 million people to the private health-insurance rolls. Assuming that universal coverage is considered desirable (an assumption which many on the right would contest), I don't think it's too much to say that the individual mandate is an attempt to save the capitalist system, in the area of health care.

It would be an epic fail of America's politics if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate with a perfectly partisan 5 - 4 Republican / Democratic decision, and then, in November, the election for President is between two people who have actually signed such a mandate into law.

155 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:35:50pm

re: #123 kirkspencer

Scalia lost his veneer of professionalism in my eyes several years back. But the jaw-dropper in this case was his question of whether he, or perhaps his clerks, would be required to read the entire law. (sorry, "all 2700 pages.").

while it was played for a laugh, I would still have liked hearing, "well, yes. after all, it is what you're judging today."

I think the point was not so much reading as deciding on each item, para by para, which would hardly be feasible.

156 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:36:30pm

re: #144 Gus

ICYMI. Got another one!

Second White Nationalist Writing for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch

Of course, Michelle Malkin can write for the white nationalist VDARE and still be published and invited everywhere.

157 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:39:01pm

re: #153 BoonGoggle

Cool looking building.

Glad they picked this one. Some of the initial proposals were rather goofy.

158 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:41:12pm
159 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:43:48pm

re: #158 Gus

they hired Newt?

160 gwangung  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:44:12pm

re: #129 Daniel Ballard

Right deregulation screwed the system in Ca. Hence my point for a strict regime. Medical care has a zero history of a mandate.

In this country. As a nation.

There are other examples that are instructive, though.

161 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:44:30pm

re: #159 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance

they hired Newt?

John Derpyshire

//

163 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:47:45pm

re: #162 Kragar

Heh. You can always trust the right-wing media to overreach and make asses out of themselves.

164 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:48:44pm

re: #160 gwangung

Welcome, hatchling.

165 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:50:50pm

re: #162 Kragar

Fox News’ Keith Ablow: Working Moms Like Hilary Rosen Despise Themselves

I read that as "Working Moms Like Hilary Rosen Despite Themselves".

Then I cleaned my glasses. The world sometimes makes more sense with dirty glasses.

166 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:50:51pm
167 Kragar  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:55:15pm

Tennessee Senate Approves Bill To Warn Students That Hand-Holding Is A ‘Gateway Sexual Activity’

Last week, the Senate passed SB 3310, a bill to update the state’s abstinence-based sex education curriculum to define holding hands and kissing as “gateway sexual activities.” Just one senator voted against the legislation; 28 voted in favor.

Since the bill specifically bans teachers from “demonstrating gateway sexual activity”, educators would be prohibited from even demonstrating what hand-holding is. Breaking these laws could result in a lawsuit, as Hunter from Daily Kos notes:

If your teacher teaches you anything about sex that isn’t specifically on the approved curriculum, like demonstrating “holding hands” for the class instead of quietly tsking about the dangers it poses, they can be sued.

168 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:58:13pm

re: #167 Kragar

they really are giving the onion a run for its money.

169 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 12:58:52pm

re: #162 Kragar

Fox News’ Keith Ablow: Working Moms Like Hilary Rosen Despise Themselves

I've always wondered about men who shave their heads. I have enough trouble bothering to do it with my chin.

I have a feeling it is because their choices are that or go with the Donald.

170 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:00:29pm

Look, I'm not interested in discussing Ann Romney's life decisions (if I were married to a rich man, I would also have wanted to stay home and raise a big family), nor her tendency to chew her toes in front of the press, nor am I interested in hearing the nonsense Fox is spewing about moms with paid jobs, which is a hell of a lot of moms.

But I am going to ask what the wingnut comments about Michelle Obama (she of the 'not real' job) would have been like if she had been an at-home mom.

Women can't win this one, can we? And black women least of all.

171 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:01:12pm

re: #170 SanFranciscoZionist

ding ding ding we have a winna!

step up and receive your prize, a free trans-vaginal probe!

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:01:58pm

re: #169 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

I've always wondered about men who shave their heads. I have enough trouble bothering to do it with my chin.

I have a feeling it is because their choices are that or go with the Donald.

My rabbi once expressed some mild concern that it was hard to identify neo-Nazis these days, since so many perfectly nice young men were wearing Docs and shaved heads, 'for fashion'.

173 Gus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:02:42pm

Why Scalia Could Uphold Obamacare
By Lawrence Lessig

Most non-lawyers have been bemused by the confidence that constitutional lawyers once had about the Supreme Court's likely decision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka, the Obamacare) case. The idea that this Republican Court would not give the Republicans their victory seemed silly to most, or at least naive. What possible reason would there be to imagine the Court would hold its punches?

But indeed, there was a confidence, at least among those whose career is focused upon the intricacies of commerce clause jurisprudence, that the Court would uphold the statute. When I read that my colleague Charles Fried -- Ronald Reagan's solicitor general -- said that he would eat his hat if the Court struck the statute, I didn't think Fried was being brave or reckless: the point seemed too obvious to remark. Whether wise or not, Obamacare is plainly constitutional under the Court's existing precedents. That's not to say the Court couldn't make up a new rule by which the law was deemed unconstitutional. But against the history of the repeated embarrassments that the Court has suffered as it has tried to police Congress' commerce authority, it seemed genuinely unimaginable that it would again make the same mistake.

The simplest way to see this point is to focus on the jurisprudence of a key vote in any hypothetical 5-4 decision to strike the law -- Justice Antonin Scalia...

174 Kragar  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:04:35pm

Erdogan Suggests Invoking Article 5 Of NATO Charter To Protect Turkey’s Border With Syria

Yesterday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan raised the possibility of invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and calling on NATO to protect Turkey’s border:

“We have many options. A country has rights born out of international law against border violations,” Erdogan was quoted as saying by Hurriyet daily and other newspapers.

“Also, NATO has responsibilities to do with Turkey’s borders, according to Article 5,” added Erdogan, whose country is a NATO member.

According to Article 5, NATO members “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence.” NATO first invoked Article 5 after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

175 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:05:37pm

re: #13 Obdicut

Oh wow.

So, how is that not absolute precedent?

Because that one is specifically covered in the Constitution. (Section 8)

You might interpret it differently than the SCOTUS.

However that is the difference at this time.

176 Killgore Trout  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:06:25pm

re: #170 SanFranciscoZionist

Look, I'm not interested in discussing Ann Romney's life decisions (if I were married to a rich man, I would also have wanted to stay home and raise a big family), nor her tendency to chew her toes in front of the press, nor am I interested in hearing the nonsense Fox is spewing about moms with paid jobs, which is a hell of a lot of moms.

But I am going to ask what the wingnut comments about Michelle Obama (she of the 'not real' job) would have been like if she had been an at-home mom.

Women can't win this one, can we? And black women least of all.

Bravo!

177 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:07:08pm

re: #175 Buck

Because that one is specifically covered in the Constitution. (Section 8)

You might interpret it differently than the SCOTUS.

However that is the difference at this time.

Once again Buck...

Raise everyone's taxes, give everyone who buys health insurance a tax break.

Is the above constitutionally legal?

If it isn't why not?

If it is, why isn't the mandate that HAS THE EXACT SAME EFFECT?

178 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:07:46pm

re: #8 Kronocide

It is relevant. Just because one is a choice (car, boat), and another isn't (being alive), does not make it irrelevant. It makes it different, not irrelevant.

Then I wonder why the Lawyer who was standing for the mandate didn't mention it? Do you really think he just missed this "absolute precedent" by accident?

179 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:08:50pm

re: #177 jamesfirecat

Once again Buck...

Raise everyone's taxes, give everyone who buys health insurance a tax break.

Is the above constitutionally legal?

If it isn't why not?

If it is, why isn't the mandate that HAS THE EXACT SAME EFFECT?

Maybe, but that is not the bill in front of you. That is not the bill the President signed.

180 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:10:44pm

re: #177 jamesfirecat

If it is, why isn't the mandate that HAS THE EXACT SAME EFFECT?

Sorry, I missed that last part. Because of the fine / penalty for NOT buying.

181 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:11:13pm

re: #175 Buck

No, Buck. First of all, that section of the constitution doesn't say that congress has the power to conscript people, just to raise an army. You can raise an army without conscripting people.

Second of all, making sure that all people are healthy is an obvious good thing for the military as well. We reject a ton of people from the army for medical reasons, many of them caused by conditions that, if they had been treated earlier, wouldn't have wound up with them getting rejected.

182 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:11:19pm

re: #179 Buck

Maybe, but that is not the bill in front of you. That is not the bill the President signed.

So you/the constitution doesn't have a problem with "forcing" people to buy things with taxes, just not being up front about it.


The Republicans are taking a bill to the supreme court TO GET THE WORDING CHANGED!


Instead of "if you don't buy then you'll loose X" it will be "everyone looses X, but if you do buy you get X back"

Does anyone else see this as a waste of the nation's time?

183 sneb  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:12:30pm

re: #159 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance

*wipes spit off of computer*

184 wrenchwench  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:13:42pm

re: #183 sneb

*wipes spit off of computer*

Welcome, hatchling.

Clean up the shells as well as the spit, please.

185 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:15:09pm

re: #180 Buck

Sorry, I missed that last part. Because of the fine / penalty for NOT buying.

But if your taxes are raised and a rebate is given to people who buy, then guess what you're still effectively penalized for not buying aren't you?

A:Pay X more to the government because you didn't buy health insurance.

B: Everyone pay X more but you get X back if you have health insurance.

A and B have the exact same effect of people/the market don't they?

Would you be okay with/ think that a blanket tax and a rebate is constitutional Buck?

186 KingKenrod  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:18:23pm

re: #185 jamesfirecat

But if your taxes are raised and a rebate is given to people who buy, then guess what you're still effectively penalized for not buying aren't you?

A:Pay X more to the government because you didn't buy health insurance.

B: Everyone pay X more but you get X back if you have health insurance.

A and B have the exact same effect of people/the market don't they?

Would you be okay with/ think that a blanket tax and a rebate is constitutional Buck?

What kind of taxes are you planning to raise?

187 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:18:55pm

re: #181 Obdicut

No, Buck. First of all, that section of the constitution doesn't say that congress has the power to conscript people, just to raise an army. You can raise an army without conscripting people.

Well, it says more than that, but you can interpret it the way you want. After all you have the internet.

I guess Obama should have had you argue the case instead of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Clearly he missed this "absolute precedent".

188 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:20:28pm

re: #173 Gus

Key grafs:

No one doubts that under the current Court's reading of "necessary," the alleged effect of this non-activity -- the failure of some to buy insurance -- substantially affects interstate commerce. The only question for Scalia -- and he made this question clear in oral argument -- is whether regulating a non-activity is also "proper." Put most strongly, at least for an originalist: is there evidence that the Framers would have deemed "improper" a law that forced citizens to do something they didn't want to do or to buy something they didn't want to buy? Or again, is there evidence that the Framers would have channeled Justice Brandeis by protecting a fundamental "right to be left alone," economic efficiencies notwithstanding?

Here's where Elhauge's evidence could be conclusive, at least for an originalist like Scalia. Elhauge points to at least three statutes enacted by the first Congress that explicitly regulated non-activity: Congress mandated that ship-owners buy medical insurance for their seamen; Congress mandated that every able-bodied male buy a fire-arm; and Congress mandated that seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. For an originalist, these statutes should resolve the question of whether the Framers thought there was something "improper" in forcing individuals to do something or buy something they otherwise would not want or need.

That's the point I addressed up above.

189 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:20:59pm

re: #186 KingKenrod

What kind of taxes are you planning to raise?

Everyone (who would have possibly been penalized under the old mandate) is now subject to a "Mandate Tax" equal to the amount that they would be fined for not buying healthcare.

If they have a suitable healthcare plan however (the kind that would keep them from getting penalized under the old law) they will get the amount refunded.

Doesn't this achieve the EXACT same effect as a mandate and penalties but is unquestionably constitutional unless all of a sudden congress can't create new taxes, or offer tax rebates for certain behaviors.

190 Kragar  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:21:53pm
191 uncah91  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:21:58pm

It's not even really a mandate. They can't send you to jail for not having insurance. You just pay more in taxes...

192 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:22:09pm

Man. Does anybody here have the exact statutory language of the individual mandate? This is proving really hard for me to find for some reason

193 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:22:33pm

re: #9 dragonfire1981

I have never understood Americans bitter resistance to single payer. As a Canadian now living in America, it baffles me even more.

Socialism!!!!1!11

194 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:22:46pm

re: #187 Buck

The case wasn't argued before the supreme court, so it doesn't actually set precedent. It shows that the framers-- 14 of them, anyway-- obviously felt it was constitutional.

195 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:23:57pm

re: #132 Obdicut

How can a strict regime mandate that insurance companies price their products so people can afford them? Are you saying the government ought to price-control the way that they do with electricity-- force the insurance companies to sell at certain rates?

So it's okay to force people to sell things at a certain price, but not to mandate they buy things?

That's the structure we have.

196 Sionainn  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:24:13pm

re: #190 Kragar

Sarah Palin interjects herself into the Romney Rosen flap

One more clear example that she doesn't understand context and manufactures "outrages." What a twit.

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:24:24pm

re: #190 Kragar

Sarah Palin interjects herself into the Romney Rosen flap

She's got a point, or rather her sister does. No one is asking how Rick Santorum can possibly be president when he's got a disabled three-year-old to take care of.

They're saying that Rick Santorum cannot possibly be president, but that's not why.

198 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:25:25pm

re: #197 SanFranciscoZionist

She's got a point, or rather her sister does. No one is asking how Rick Santorum can possibly be president when he's got a disabled three-year-old to take care of.

They're saying that Rick Santorum cannot possibly be president, but that's not why.

Of course, her error is in assuming that this is something that's only aimed at conservative women, ignoring the guys on 'her team' who are incredibly disdainful of any personal choice made by a woman who's not one of them.

199 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:25:49pm

re: #185 jamesfirecat

Once again, that is not the bill in front of the SCOTUS. You can play what ifs all you want, but it is not an argument for the Mandate as it was written, voted on, and signed by the President.

Do you understand that the Supreme Court thought that this was worthy of their time? That it clearly is not cut and dried as you make it seem? That there are people with experience and education that see it as unclear?

You might think that the Supreme Court are part of some anti Obama conspiracy, but I assure you they are not. This is the backstop for laws that are in question as to their Constitutionality.

200 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:27:43pm

re: #111 blueraven

When? Really, when do we we "start over"?
Do you thing a single payer would pass?
It will be a decade or more...the republicans offer nothing.

We might be starting over maybe not. If so, right away. But the inability of the current administration and or congress to get this done as soon as we would like is a poor excuse to pass a bad plan with ill effects on enumerated powers.

Is this the best we can do? Really?

201 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:27:49pm

opposition to "government mandates" is based on the constitutional principle that you can't make me so there you're not my mommy

202 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:27:57pm

re: #199 Buck

Once again, that is not the bill in front of the SCOTUS. You can play what ifs all you want, but it is not an argument for the Mandate as it was written, voted on, and signed by the President.

Do you understand that the Supreme Court thought that this was worthy of their time? That it clearly is not cut and dried as you make it seem? That there are people with experience and education that see it as unclear?

You might think that the Supreme Court are part of some anti Obama conspiracy, but I assure you they are not. This is the backstop for laws that are in question as to their Constitutionality.

Buck please answer my question.

I've laid out a way that to me is perfectly constitutional and achieves the same effect as a mandate.

Do you agree it does as well or not?

I feel it is important to discuss because if the mandate is struck down my suggestion should be a good replacement, what are your thoughts?

203 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:29:34pm

re: #2 Buck

You just don't get it.

Don't want to buy insurance? Don't own a ship.

Car insurance is required (mandated), but not if you don't own a car.

The health insurance mandates are required for everyone by virtue of a heartbeat.
Now you might think that is ok. And maybe it is. The Supremes will decide.

In the meanwhile that example is not relevant.

we have no way of opting out of being made to contribute to higher health care costs and higher health insurance premiums caused by people who don't have health insurance and can't afford the health care they get

204 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:29:39pm

re: #194 Obdicut

The case wasn't argued before the supreme court, so it doesn't actually set precedent. It shows that the framers-- 14 of them, anyway-- obviously felt it was constitutional.

Ok, so you answered your question about why this isn't an "absolute precedent".

However you are discounting how those 14 framers felt about Section 8 of the constitution as it applied to this "mandate".

205 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:29:43pm

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

206 Lidane  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:30:21pm
207 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:30:33pm

Does Obamacare require you to buy insurance or just to secure it?

208 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:30:48pm

re: #199 Buck

The mandate as written essentially imposes a tax on those who do not choose to buy insurance for themselves (penalties imposed pursuant to income levels), while those who do purchase health insurance are entitled to a credit based on income levels to help defray their costs.

The idea is that the penalties are designed to not only offset the costs of people trying to purchase into the new programs, but to help encourage people to buy the insurance in the first place.

That has a very definite effect on interstate commerce.

Heck, the lack of health care insurance has a very definite effect on interstate commerce - because someone has to pick up the tab for those indigent care visits. It causes all kinds of problems, including distressed hospitals, bankruptcies, consolidations, takeovers, etc.

That's clearly a result of individual nonparticipation in health insurance (each instance as multiplied by all those others who haven't purchased insurance or have a way of paying for health care costs).

209 Sionainn  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:31:12pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

I'm "meh" about the mandate. It's not what I wanted. I was for single payer.

210 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:32:05pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

Where does Charles say he "has reservations"? He says "I'm not that crazy about the mandate. " that could just means he views it as a bad way to achieve people getting insurance as opposed to single payer.

I think you are putting words in Charles' mouth and if I in turn am accidentally doing the same I will apologize to him once he corrects me.

211 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:32:42pm

re: #204 Buck

Ok, so you answered your question about why this isn't an "absolute precedent".

Yes, I did.

However you are discounting how those 14 framers felt about Section 8 of the constitution as it applied to this "mandate".

Why are you putting mandate in quotes? It was a mandate. And again: making sure all citizens have health insurance would be good military preparation too-- so why ignore that?

212 Decatur Deb  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:32:44pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

The Selective Service Act pretty much settled the 'mandate' issue for me. If you are an 18-yr old male, the government can mandate that you go up a hill full of machine guns.

213 uncah91  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:09pm

re: #195 Daniel Ballard

That's the structure we have.

You do realize that a) the ACA does regulate the insurance market and that b) the pushing/pulling of everyone into the insurance market makes those regulations work?

This mandate works in a very similar fashion to the monopoly granted to utilities. By putting everyone in the same market, it makes sure big costs can be shared.

214 Kragar  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:16pm

Gingrich tells National Rifle Association UN should apply gun rights to everyone on planet

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the United Nations should adopt a treaty giving everyone on the planet the right to bear firearms.

The GOP presidential candidate told the National Rifle Association convention Friday in St. Louis that the group has been too timid in promoting gun rights.

Gingrich said there would be fewer women raped, children killed and villages destroyed if everyone had the right to carry a gun.

Yes, because the chief problem in developing nations is they don't have enough guns.

215 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:23pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

The mandate has all kinds of issues, and one of them relates to how much money it brings in versus what is expended - it's a revenue portion of the larger health care package, and if the assumptions are wrong, the rest of the program would suffer from significant deficits (forcing cutbacks, reductions, and further changes).

There are also enforcement problems to consider, as well as the need to use the tax code and IRS to work through these issues at a time when they're already stretched thin trying to enforce and gain compliance on the existing tax code.

216 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:44pm

re: #204 Buck

Ok, so you answered your question about why this isn't an "absolute precedent".

However you are discounting how those 14 framers felt about Section 8 of the constitution as it applied to this "mandate".

how could the federal government force me to buy the iraq war?

i did pay for part of it, after all, and it wasn't cheap

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:47pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

Sure, I have reservations. This seems like a hugely clunky way to go about things.

218 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:51pm

I continue to be impressed with the discipline of the rightwing.

The uniformity of their response to the "attack" on Ann Romney is a sight to behold. Check out Fox's front page on their website. Riding for a car for a total of 1/2 hour today, I heard it mentioned, repeatedly, by Limbaugh and a local frightwing talk host here in Philly.

How they can be so uniform in a ridiculous and distorted reaction is really quite impressive. It reminds me of when Jon Stewart talks about how impressed he is at how well Fox coordinates their coordination between their "news" coverage and their, well whatever they call it, coverage.

219 Neutral President  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:33:57pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

I'm not happy about the way it was implemented. The IRS shouldn't be anywhere near this, and those that are getting this "fine" for not buying insurance are still uninsured.

220 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:34:14pm

re: #208 lawhawk

Are you sure the language says "purchase" insurance?

221 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:35:07pm

If the actual language of the statute says "purchase" and not "obtain, acquire, possess, etc." then a big difference arises between this and the Militia Act.

222 blueraven  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:35:26pm

re: #200 Daniel Ballard

We might be starting over maybe not. If so, right away. But the inability of the current administration and or congress to get this done as soon as we would like is a poor excuse to pass a bad plan with ill effects on enumerated powers.

Is this the best we can do? Really?

Evidently it is, yes. Since the republicans seem totally uninterested.
Are you saying that every law is perfect?

223 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:35:28pm

re: #210 jamesfirecat

Where does Charles say he "has reservations"? He says "he's not crazy about the mandate" that could just means he views it as a bad way to achieve people getting insurance as opposed to single payer.

I think you are putting words in Charles' mouth and if I in turn am accidentally doing the same I will apologize to him once he corrects me.

Heh. "Not thrilled" implies something slightly negative as I hope "reservations" also does in this context. That's why I linked to avoid any misunderstanding from my description. I asked him but I think he's moved on.

224 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:36:56pm

re: #223 Daniel Ballard

Heh. "Not thrilled" implies something slightly negative as I hope "reservations" also does in this context. That's why I linked to avoid any misunderstanding from my description. I asked him but I think he's moved on.

In retrospect this aspect of argument is taking a left turn onto Silly Street and I'd like to apologize for it.

///Now I must go back to praising the God Emperor of Lizardkind.

225 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:37:08pm

re: #202 jamesfirecat

Buck please answer my question.

I've laid out a way that to me is perfectly constitutional and achieves the same effect as a mandate.

Do you agree it does as well or not?

I feel it is important to discuss because if the mandate is struck down my suggestion should be a good replacement, what are your thoughts?

First, I can't answer if is "perfectly constitutional". We will see soon when the Supremes deliver their answers. I think it would fail in the same place, raise taxes on everybody, unless they buy something... That question was tried. Is it a fine or a tax?

I guess you miss the part where anyone who wants to "raise taxes" will be tar and feathered in today's environment. Raise taxes on everybody? Unless they buy something... This is exactly why the government keeps calling it a fine.

226 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:38:59pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

I can understand the concern but I don't share it. As I pointed out above on the Militia act, the Founding Fathers were ok with Federal mandates that were very expensive. I'd argue that the common welfare (health) is as valid a reason for a mandate as the common defense.

227 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:39:13pm

re: #173 Gus

Why Scalia Could Uphold Obamacare
By Lawrence Lessig

The mistake there is thinking that what drives the court is honest views of constitutionality. What we have seen (from how they switch sides on issues such as states' rights depending on the context) is that the court decides based on political ideology and uses questions of constitutionality as a cover.

What I find mildly interesting is what do the conservatives do on the court if they think that it would be politically advantageous for Obama to have the health insurance act shot down.

228 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:39:32pm

re: #225 Buck

First, I can't answer if is "perfectly constitutional". We will see soon when the Supremes deliver their answers. I think it would fail in the same place, raise taxes on everybody, unless they buy something... That question was tried. Is it a fine or a tax?

I guess you miss the part where anyone who wants to "raise taxes" will be tar and feathered in today's environment. Raise taxes on everybody? Unless they buy something... This is exactly why the government keeps calling it a fine.

it's a fine since it's a penalty for failing to do something. you don't pay a tax because you failed to do something

229 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:40:16pm

re: #211 Obdicut

And again: making sure all citizens have health insurance would be good military preparation too-- so why ignore that?

I didn't ignore that. I simply pointed out that (health insurance) it wasn't in the Constitution. Again, you want to interpret that it is, fine with me.

230 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:40:52pm

re: #221 SpaceJesus

It may read as maintain and not as purchase as I indicated - I have to check the specific section, but I've gotta run. In the end though, it's up to the individual to purchase the insurance policy. They aren't getting it for free, even if its through an employer. They are buying a policy, even if costs are split, credits are provided, or some other cost-sharing arrangement.

231 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:41:01pm

re: #228 engineer cat

it's a fine since it's a penalty for failing to do something. you don't pay a tax because you failed to do something

I agree with you.

232 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:41:08pm

re: #175 Buck

Because that one is specifically covered in the Constitution. (Section 8)

You might interpret it differently than the SCOTUS.

However that is the difference at this time.

In case you don't follow up your posts

233 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:41:24pm

re: #229 Buck

I didn't ignore that. I simply pointed out that (health insurance) it wasn't in the Constitution. Again, you want to interpret that it is, fine with me.

You're not even reading what I'm writing, then, and you're acting with your usual ignorance of the constitution. The ability to raise an army doesn't equal the ability to make everyone purchase a weapon, and if it does, it also empowers congress to mandate everyone purchase insurance to make sure they're in fit and fighting trim.

234 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:41:29pm

so, buck, again, a question:

if the government can force me to buy military equipment, why can't it force me to buy health insurance?

235 KingKenrod  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:41:51pm

re: #189 jamesfirecat

Everyone is now subject to a "Mandate Tax" equal to the amount that they would be fined for not buying healthcare.

If they have a suitable healthcare plan however (the kind that would keep them from getting penalized under the old law) they will get the amount refunded.

Doesn't this achieve the EXACT same effect as a mandate and penalties but is unquestionably constitutional unless all of a sudden congress can't create new taxes, or offer tax rebates for certain behaviors.

Congress does have limitations on the taxes it can create. If someone is assessed a "mandate" tax, it is a per-person or capitation tax. I don't know if those have ever been done or if they are legal.

Since a person's liberty depends on paying it (the threat of government punishment), it is similar to a poll tax, which is to say the rights and privileges of citizenship are at stake.

236 jaunte  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:42:01pm

re: #218 Talking Point Detective

I continue to be impressed with the discipline of the rightwing.

The uniformity of their response to the "attack" on Ann Romney is a sight to behold. Check out Fox's front page on their website. Riding for a car for a total of 1/2 hour today, I heard it mentioned, repeatedly, by Limbaugh and a local frightwing talk host here in Philly.

Republicans’ desperation exposed in Ann Romney ‘controversy’

If the Obama camp is responsible for Rosen, is Romney responsible for GOP Rep. Allen West’s outrageous accusation that 80 Democrats are communists? Is he responsible for Sherriff Joe Arapaio (Romney’s ’08 Arizona campaign chairman) and his birther conspiracy theories? Absolutely not. If that were the standard, the campaign would just be day after day of candidates disavowing random pundits and supporters’ comments. That Republicans feel they have to stoop to this suggests a real desperation.

237 SpaceJesus  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:42:03pm

re: #230 lawhawk

I know, but the Militia Act doesn't require anybody to buy anything. It just says you need to "have" those guns.

238 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:42:08pm

re: #225 Buck

First, I can't answer if is "perfectly constitutional". We will see soon when the Supremes deliver their answers. I think it would fail in the same place, raise taxes on everybody, unless they buy something... That question was tried. Is it a fine or a tax?

I guess you miss the part where anyone who wants to "raise taxes" will be tar and feathered in today's environment. Raise taxes on everybody? Unless they buy something... This is exactly why the government keeps calling it a fine.

I guess you miss the point where what I am suggesting is not before the supreme court but the actual mandate and fine (as opposed to my tax and rebate) suggestion is.

I guess you also miss the part where what is politically likely to happen/popular has no bearing on if something is constitutional or not.

The government can raise taxes. We can agree on that right.


Can the government give people rebates if they buy a product?

Well if memory serves you can get tax rebate/credit for buying a home can't you?

Or for a Hybrid Car

So given that there are two parts to my idea (Raise taxes) and (rebate) and both have been used before without uproar.... what makes you think my suggestion isn't constitutional?

239 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:43:15pm

re: #222 blueraven

Evidently it is, yes. Since the republicans seem totally uninterested.
Are you saying that every law is perfect?

Perfect? Hardly. Better than this? Most often yes. BTW as I think I have said before both myself and my wife have previous conditions that put us in a tough spot. I want reform as much as anyone.

I'm just not letting that make me look the other way on important details like the balance of powers. That view of mine might sometimes be confused with states rights as espoused by rwnj's. I want states rights as in California being able to go with the low carbon fuels law as was struck down by the commerce clause. Obviously I hope I do not want a return to an era of diminished civil rights.

I hope that's how I came across with my comments.

240 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:44:30pm

re: #235 KingKenrod

Congress does have limitations on the taxes it can create. If someone is assessed a "mandate" tax, it is a per-person or capitation tax. I don't know if those have ever been done or if they are legal.

Since a person's liberty depends on paying it (the threat of government punishment), it is similar to a poll tax, which is to say the rights and privileges of citizenship are at stake.

Lawkhawk do you have any comments on my suggestion? (Or any other legal lizards here, I honestly don't know myself and would enjoy hearing comment on my suggestions legality)

241 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:44:30pm

re: #238 jamesfirecat

Well if memory serves you can get tax rebate/credit for buying a home can't you?

Or for a Hybrid Car

Now imagine if they taxed you if you didn't buy a house and didn't buy a Hybrid car? Take the blinders off. See the whole picture.

242 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:44:39pm

re: #233 Obdicut

You're not even reading what I'm writing, then, and you're acting with your usual ignorance of the constitution. The ability to raise an army doesn't equal the ability to make everyone purchase a weapon, and if it does, it also empowers congress to mandate everyone purchase insurance to make sure they're in fit and fighting trim.

maintaining a large standing army was definitely not envisioned by the founding fathers

in the 18th century the idea of a government maintaining a large standing military force during peacetime was distinctly controversial

243 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:45:59pm

re: #241 Buck

Now imagine if they taxed you if you didn't buy a house and didn't buy a Hybrid car? Take the blinders off. See the whole picture.

Okay I've imagined it.

It sorta sucks but I can't see how it's unconstitutional for them to raise my taxes or for them to give tax rebates for people who do certain things.


Which of those two behaviors is unconstitutional Buck? Explain "the whole picture" to me.

244 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:46:17pm

re: #242 engineer cat

Yep. That's why it's the power to raise an army, not keep an army.

But we changed our view on that, over time, since it became necessary to have a standing army. Luckily, people understood it was the spirit of the intention, not the letter, that needed to be followed.

245 Decatur Deb  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:46:51pm

re: #242 engineer cat

maintaining a large standing army was definitely not envisioned by the founding fathers

in the 18th century the idea of a government maintaining a large standing military force during peacetime was distinctly controversial

Which is why the USN gets to tiresomely remind the US Army that they are authorized by the Constitution, and a permanent Army is not.

246 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:47:15pm

re: #35 Obdicut

Seriously dude, and I think I speak for a lot of people that you're wrong about, while I think most times I'd think a law mandating the purchase of a gun to be stupid and ill-advised, I wouldn't think it was unconstitutional.

Do you really think that would survive a constitutional challenge? I do not.

247 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:48:09pm

re: #243 jamesfirecat

Okay I've imagined it.

It sorta sucks but I can't see how it's unconstitutional for them to raise my taxes or for them to give tax rebates for people who do certain things.

Which of those two behaviors is unconstitutional Buck? Explain "the whole picture" to me.

You can't separate them if you intend to use them together. It becomes one 'behaviour'. The court will decide if it becomes a fine for not buying something.

248 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:49:57pm

re: #246 Daniel Ballard

Do you really think that would survive a constitutional challenge? I do not.

Yes, I really do. How many times do I have to say that? Do you think I'm lying to you or something?

249 KingKenrod  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:50:35pm

re: #205 Daniel Ballard

Let me ask this, does anyone besides myself and Charles as he mentioned have reservations about the Federal mandate? Anyone else share that concern or am I in that big of a minority on this?

I don't like the mandate. The problems with it are obvious if you just consider what it would look like if you just removed government subsidies for the poor. Every poor person would be criminalized for not being able to buy insurance.

And if the subsidies are cut in the future, those cuts amount to a horrific regressive tax.

250 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:50:57pm

for the first few hundred years of the roman republic armies were citizen levies, and your rank depended on how much military gear you could afford to pay for yourself

in about 100 bc marius created the first standing professional roman army. many historians cite this as a major contributing factor to the end of the republic

251 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:51:35pm

re: #225 Buck

First, I can't answer if is "perfectly constitutional". We will see soon when the Supremes deliver their answers. I think it would fail in the same place, raise taxes on everybody, unless they buy something... That question was tried. Is it a fine or a tax?

I guess you miss the part where anyone who wants to "raise taxes" will be tar and feathered in today's environment. Raise taxes on everybody? Unless they buy something... This is exactly why the government keeps calling it a fine.

You play games with words and think it has meaning today, like Scalia does when he wants us to live according to the past.

Until the day comes when we agree to let people die because they can't afford to pay for health care, (which everyone will need eventually short of sudden death) those who play the health lottery instead of paying for insurance, when they can, are parasites on everyone else. Should I call it welfare to make it more palatable to you?

Expecting everything to be predicted in the constitution is like expecting everything to be predicted in the bible, as many do.

Are you one of those?

252 Decatur Deb  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:53:55pm

re: #250 engineer cat

for the first few hundred years of the roman republic armies were citizen levies, and your rank depended on how much military gear you could afford to pay for yourself

in about 100 bc marius created the first standing professional roman army. many historians cite this as a major contributing factor to the end of the republic

At the height of the late 60s antiwar movement, my young history instructor was challenged about his support of the draft. He said: "I support it. Never give the generals an army they can trust."

253 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:55:52pm

re: #250 engineer cat

for the first few hundred years of the roman republic armies were citizen levies, and your rank depended on how much military gear you could afford to pay for yourself

in about 100 bc marius created the first standing professional roman army. many historians cite this as a major contributing factor to the end of the republic

As in no more conscription?

254 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:55:59pm

re: #248 Obdicut

No but this is a good time to point out I'm hardly alone even on the board here. A number of posters share some concern about the mandate. it's another example of good people coming to differing conclusions. Just like SCOTUS.

255 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:57:57pm

re: #254 Daniel Ballard

No but this is a good time to point out I'm hardly alone even on the board here.

Why do you keep asserting this as though I've denied it? It's weird.

And you keep asking me if I think that mandating gun purchases would be constitutional. I not only think so, I outlined my reasoning-- and yet you asked me again.

256 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 1:59:54pm

re: #213 uncah91

You do realize that a) the ACA does regulate the insurance market and that b) the pushing/pulling of everyone into the insurance market makes those regulations work?

This mandate works in a very similar fashion to the monopoly granted to utilities. By putting everyone in the same market, it makes sure big costs can be shared.

ACA is weak methinks. It has not been nearly as good at distributing at an affordable cost. The performance is the difference.

257 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:00:27pm

re: #253 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

As in no more conscription?

most roman soldiers under marius' new model army signed up voluntarily, making very long term commitments, sometimes as much as 20 years

on the other hand, in a pinch you might very well find yourself dragooned

but, yes, the older compulsory citizen levy no longer operated, and 'citizen' and 'soldier' no longer meant the same thing

258 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:07:06pm

re: #254 Daniel Ballard

No but this is a good time to point out I'm hardly alone even on the board here. A number of posters share some concern about the mandate. it's another example of good people coming to differing conclusions. Just like SCOTUS.

This is so frustrating. Why don't you just put all your concerns on the table, and sign a promise (pledge) that you would rather die or suffer, quietly, at home than accept any services that you can't pay for or don't have insurance for if you could have paid for them in the past, instead of buying that car, or whatever?

259 Eventual Carrion  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:11:34pm

re: #167 Kragar

Tennessee Senate Approves Bill To Warn Students That Hand-Holding Is A ‘Gateway Sexual Activity’

Well to be fair, it could lead to dancing. And then where would we be (other than on Dancing with Little Hand Holding SLUTS!)?

260 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:13:49pm

re: #251 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

Expecting everything to be predicted in the constitution is like expecting everything to be predicted in the bible, as many do.

Well, I don't agree with you. We might have to leave it at that.

261 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:14:42pm

re: #260 Buck

Given your frequent past misreadings of the US constitution, why do you think your opinion on this should be listened to?

262 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:16:17pm

re: #261 Obdicut

Once again you take disagreement of your opinion to be flat out wrong.

You say "frequent past misreadings of the US constitution" as if it were fact.

263 engineer cat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:18:25pm

re: #253 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

As in no more conscription?

actually, even under the older roman scheme a citizen normally could never be forced to serve in the same way that americans can be forced to serve under a draft

264 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:18:54pm

re: #262 Buck

Once again you take disagreement of your opinion to be flat out wrong.

I don't know what that sentence means. I do think you're wrong. I don't think I'm the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

You say "frequent past misreadings of the US constitution" as if it were fact.

Well, yes, I do think it's factually true that you've misread the US constitution frequently, which isn't surprising since it's not your constitution and you're not that familiar with it.

But again, I also don't think I'm the ultimate arbiter of fact and fiction. We are on a board where other people know you, and can make up their own mind about how credible you are.

265 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:23:35pm

re: #264 Obdicut

Well, yes, I do think it's factually true that you've misread the US constitution frequently, which isn't surprising since it's not your constitution and you're not that familiar with it.

Once again with the "you are Canadian" thing. I am pretty familiar with it.

Maybe you could back it up with one example, and a link?

266 sagehen  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:26:30pm

re: #254 Daniel Ballard

No but this is a good time to point out I'm hardly alone even on the board here. A number of posters share some concern about the mandate. it's another example of good people coming to differing conclusions. Just like SCOTUS.

I'm not the least bit in doubt about it's constitutionality, I just think it was a poorly designed plan. I didn't like it when Heritage suggested it as an alternative to Hillarycare, I didn't like it when Gov Mitt made it MA state law, and I didn't like it when Obamacare was designed around it. It's a crap law.

That said... lots of perfectly constitutional laws are crap laws. There's nothing in the constitution that requires efficiency, cost-effectiveness or wisdom in our laws.

267 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:27:53pm

re: #259 RayFerd

Well to be fair, it could lead to dancing. And then where would we be (other than on Dancing with Little Hand Holding SLUTS!)?

Do you know this song?

[Link: www.musictory.com...]

It contains the lyrics:

Ma says, Pa says, we must keep on dancing,
Ma says, Pa says, we must keep on dancing,
For if we keep on dancing, we won't start romancing,
But if we start romancing, we won't keep on dancing.

268 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:27:55pm

re: #265 Buck

Once again with the "you are Canadian" thing. I am pretty familiar with it.

Maybe you could back it up with one example, and a link?

I don't have time at the minute, but I'll look one up for the next time we talk. Not that I expect you to recognize it as an error; that's pretty much my point, Buck.

Have you ever dealt with your mistake in reference to Palin's statements about Paul Revere, on a related note?

269 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:32:26pm

re: #268 Obdicut

I don't have time at the minute, but I'll look one up for the next time we talk. Not that I expect you to recognize it as an error; that's pretty much my point, Buck.

Have you ever dealt with your mistake in reference to Palin's statements about Paul Revere, on a related note?

Yes I have. Is this really where we hijack the thread and bring up all the stuff from previous (like years ago) threads? Really?

270 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:32:35pm

re: #241 Buck

Now imagine if they taxed you if you didn't buy a house and didn't buy a Hybrid car? Take the blinders off. See the whole picture.

Just jumping in at the end and working my way backwards - but are you really comparing healthcare as a product as being similar to other products?

Do you really not see a fundamental and categorical difference?

271 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:33:46pm

re: #269 Buck

Yes I have. Is this really where we hijack the thread and bring up all the stuff from previous (like years ago) threads? Really?

Yes, really, Buck. Do you think there is some sort of policy against it? That you'd prefer not to be reminded of that embarrassing incident I understand, but I have never seen you take accountability for it, and would be gratified to do so.

Can you explain how you dealt with that mistake?

272 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:34:15pm

re: #270 Talking Point Detective

Just jumping in at the end and working my way backwards - but are you really comparing healthcare as a product as being similar to other products?

Do you really not see a fundamental and categorical difference?

Now that was part of the Governments arguments. I suppose we will see if the SCOTUS sees it as different.

273 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:38:52pm

re: #271 Obdicut

Yes, really, Buck. Do you think there is some sort of policy against it? That you'd prefer not to be reminded of that embarrassing incident I understand, but I have never seen you take accountability for it, and would be gratified to do so.

Can you explain how you dealt with that mistake?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Now go off and be gratified.

274 sagehen  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:39:55pm

re: #272 Buck

Now that was part of the Governments arguments. I suppose we will see if the SCOTUS sees it as different.

The government can't make me buy broccoli, because it doesn't force the grocer to give me broccoli whether I pay for it or not.

The government does force the emergency room to take care of me when I need it.

275 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:41:09pm

re: #273 Buck

Oh, so you admitted your mistake long, long after the fact, only because you were hectored about it, and were whiny about doing so.

About what I'd expect. That pretty much shows you won't own up to mistakes on your own, only when called to account for them.

276 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:41:15pm

re: #258 Flame Fin Tomini Tang

This is so frustrating. Why don't you just put all your concerns on the table, and sign a promise (pledge) that you would rather die or suffer, quietly, at home than accept any services that you can't pay for or don't have insurance for if you could have paid for them in the past, instead of buying that car, or whatever?

How about I just advocate for a less questionable way to distribute good care, okay?

277 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:43:10pm

re: #272 Buck

Now that was part of the Governments arguments. I suppose we will see if the SCOTUS sees it as different.

I believe that SCOTUS is, essentially, a political body. They interpret inherently ambiguous language to suit their political ideology. They make the Constitution a "dead" or "living" document as it suits them.

I'm asking you, since you made the comparison. Do you not see that healthcare is a fundamentally and categorically different entity than other "products" that you compared it to?

278 Eventual Carrion  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:47:06pm

re: #229 Buck

I didn't ignore that. I simply pointed out that (health insurance) it wasn't in the Constitution. Again, you want to interpret that it is, fine with me.

Little snippet from the Constitution about the governments role/duty to the people:

"promote the general Welfare"

Welfare:
the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity


Well-being:
the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous :
welfare


The government was set up to help keep Americans healthy.

279 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:47:09pm

re: #274 sagehen

The government can't make me buy broccoli, because it doesn't force the grocer to give me broccoli whether I pay for it or not.

The government does force the emergency room to take care of me when I need it.

Looking at healthcare in comparison to other "products" is so fundamentally flawed, IMO, it's a non-starter.

Personally, I think the notion of fee for service, which creates that mindset, lies at the root of the problem. But there are two branches. One is the insurance branch (who pays) and the other is the medical branch (the system of delivery). A fee for service medical branch is inherently, and fatally, flawed, IMO.

280 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:48:20pm

re: #275 Obdicut

Oh, so you admitted your mistake long, long after the fact, only because you were hectored about it, and were whiny about doing so.

About what I'd expect. That pretty much shows you won't own up to mistakes on your own, only when called to account for them.

If it is not wrong in your mind to chase someone for years about a word they used (bells, the rest of my point still stands), then it says more about you than it does me.

You have called me so many names, quoted me out of context multiple times, and even quoted me completely inaccurately (adding words to mine in order to make your point). You have libelled me (called me a truther), and chased me form thread to thread for YEARS about insignificant issues.

You will obviously continue to post the lies, the misquotes, and the paraphrasing (made up stuff) as you will. Because, after all. it is not against "policy".

281 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:49:46pm

re: #278 RayFerd

The government was set up to help keep Americans healthy.

Then the Supremes will have no problem with HOW the government chooses to do it.

282 Talking Point Detective  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:49:59pm

re: #276 Daniel Ballard

How about I just advocate for a less questionable way to distribute good care, okay?

First, IMO, this has much less to do with delivering good care than it has to do with who pays for care. That is an important distinction.

Second, what is your view of a less questionable delivery system?

283 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:00:28pm

re: #280 Buck

If it is not wrong in your mind to chase someone for years about a word they used (bells, the rest of my point still stands), then it says more about you than it does me.

It's not about a word you used, Buck. Presenting it that way is disingenous. The argument was about whether or not Palin's description of Revere's ride was correct. You argued, vehemently, that it was. You refused to admit error until long after the fact. It wasn't about word choice.

You have called me so many names, quoted me out of context multiple times, and even quoted me completely inaccurately (adding words to mine in order to make your point). You have libelled me (called me a truther), and chased me form thread to thread for YEARS about insignificant issues.

I assume all of these are statements of fact, right?

You will obviously continue to post the lies, the misquotes, and the paraphrasing (made up stuff) as you will. Because, after all. it is not against "policy".

And again, these are 'facts'? Can you acknowledge you are now hypocritically doing exactly what you castigated me for doing above, though you're doing it in a much more personal and abusive fashion?

284 Eventual Carrion  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:01:50pm

re: #281 Buck

Then the Supremes will have no problem with HOW the government chooses to do it.

I put nothing past this supreme court. Pretty much Citizen United told me whose pocket the majority of the court is in.

285 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:03:07pm

buck wants us to take the blinders off

286 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:16:54pm

re: #283 Obdicut

And again, these are 'facts'? Can you acknowledge you are now hypocritically doing exactly what you castigated me for doing above, though you're doing it in a much more personal and abusive fashion?

Yes, these are absolute facts. I have them documented with links.

No, you chase me with this stupid idea that the word Bells was significant. It wasn't. I was not the only one who defended Palin, and I pointed that out then. We disagreed.... about this.... IN 2008 for goodness sake. And you have brought it up multiple times, over a period of more than three years.

All I am doing is trying to defend myself. I would not bring it up. However you force me to defend myself. Personal and Abusive? That is what you did.

287 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:19:59pm

re: #260 Buck

Well, I don't agree with you. We might have to leave it at that.

The point of being here is to argue one's case. Why are you here?

288 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:20:50pm

re: #286 Buck

Yes, these are absolute facts. I have them documented with links.

Holy crap, you actually believe that, don't you? All that shit you said about me, you believe it's just established fact.

Fucking amazing.

289 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:22:55pm

re: #276 Daniel Ballard

How about I just advocate for a less questionable way to distribute good care, okay?

What's questionable? Either we pay our way, when we can, or expect others to do so even if we can.

What are you, a communist?

:=)

290 uncah91  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:23:14pm

re: #256 Daniel Ballard

ACA is weak methinks. It has not been nearly as good at distributing at an affordable cost. The performance is the difference.

ACA hasn't had any time to work yet. We haven't even reached full implementation. I think you might confusing ACA with something else.

291 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:23:18pm

re: #288 Obdicut

Holy crap, you actually believe that, don't you? All that shit you said about me, you believe it's just established fact.

Fucking amazing.

Yep, these are absolute facts. I have them documented with links.

You want to pick one?

292 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:25:38pm

re: #291 Buck

Yep, these are absolute facts. I have them documented with links.

You want to pick one?

Sure, Buck. Document how I called you a truther, please.

293 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:28:10pm

re: #292 Obdicut

Sure, Buck. Document how I called you a truther, please.

oh Good that is the easy one.

Calling me a truther:
"I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are at all possible, and it's disappointing that you do."
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

294 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:29:39pm

re: #293 Buck

oh Good that is the easy one.

Calling me a truther:
"I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are at all possible, and it's disappointing that you do."
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

ROTFL.

Not. Even. Close.

295 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:32:03pm

re: #294 Adam, Eve and Steve

ROTFL.

Not. Even. Close.

He had zero reason to think that I did. I never said that I did. He just threw it our like a bomb. And for you to think that is not even close to calling someone a truther, then you are wrong.

296 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:34:37pm

re: #293 Buck

That's not calling you a truther, BUck.

What you said:

Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible.

Loose change does not show the conspiracies to be in any way possible, not even an extremely remote way. They present arguments which are not possible.

297 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:35:32pm

re: #296 Obdicut

That's not calling you a truther, BUck.

What you said:

Loose change does not show the conspiracies to be in any way possible, not even an extremely remote way. They present arguments which are not possible.

Yes, that is how Loose change did what they did. Nothing in there says I thought it was possible.

298 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:35:37pm

re: #293 Buck

oh Good that is the easy one.

Calling me a truther:
"I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are at all possible, and it's disappointing that you do."
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

If you can't see the difference between believing that something is possible and believing that it happened, well you must not be much fun at parties.

299 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:35:51pm

re: #295 Buck

That's the same thread where you began to insinuate I had some special reason to defend taking naked pictures of children.

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

Class act you are, Buck.

300 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:36:16pm

re: #297 Buck

Yes, that is how Loose change did what they did. Nothing in there says I thought it was possible.

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you just said. Loose Change did not present any possible scenarios. Do you agree or disagree with that?

301 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:37:07pm

re: #299 Obdicut

That's the same thread where you began to insinuate I had some special reason to defend taking naked pictures of children.

Class act you are, Buck.

No special reason. That you make up, but I did ask you if you understood the big picture of defending the use of a camera in a locker room.

302 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:37:12pm

re: #298 jamesfirecat

If you can't see the difference between believing that something is possible and believing that it happened, well you must not be much fun at parties.

It's actually different even from that. What he said was that the Loose Change guys are presenting something that, while extremely remote, is possible. It's my contention, not his, that the scenarios they present aren't even possible. Not without resorting to utter solipsism, anyway.

303 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:37:33pm

re: #295 Buck

He had zero reason to think that I did. I never said that I did. He just threw it our like a bomb. And for you to think that is not even close to calling someone a truther, then you are wrong.

No, the problem with that exchange was that Obdi misconstrued your statement about what LC shows. You said that they show a possibility of 9/11 CT in the sense that it is their mode of arguing - by showing possibility, keeping the door ajar so to say. Obdi misunderstood it as *you* saying that they prove such a possibility. Again, it was an honest mistake in the heat of the debate. But that is also why he wrote this passage.

However if you look at [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] you will see this:

No, birthers and truthers actually believe that "the government behind it" or "Obama isn't really from Hawaii" is the most likely explanation. They don't think it's a remote possibility. They think it's the truth.

So by Obdi's own definition you're *not* a truther, since he only understood you to accept a mere possibility of a conspiracy.

304 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:38:01pm

re: #301 Buck

No special reason. That you make up, but I did ask you if you understood the big picture of defending the use of a camera in a locker room.

No, Buck. Again, what you said:

Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

You stand by that accusation?

305 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:38:48pm

re: #302 Obdicut

No, what he is saying is that their rhetorical device to show a possibility, not that they actually demonstrate such.

306 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:39:31pm

re: #300 Obdicut

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you just said. Loose Change did not present any possible scenarios. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Loose change takes a small part of what happened and then tries to show a possible way it could have happened. They never say it actually happened that way, only that it could have.

In the exact same way you were making up this whole possible way that someone could have a picture of me in my underwear.

It was the third strangest conversation we ever had. AND during it, you called me a truther.

307 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:39:36pm

re: #303 Adam, Eve and Steve

It's entirely possible I misinterpreted what he said in that he was only saying that the Loose Change people thought it was 'possible'. But again, as I said, truthers don't believe that it was 'possible', they believe they know what actually happened, or at least know that the government story isn't true.

So obviously, by that standard, Buck is in no way a truther, nor did I ever call him one.

308 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:40:00pm

re: #306 Buck

Loose change takes a small part of what happened and then tries to show a possible way it could have happened. They never say it actually happened that way, only that it could have.

But Buck, do you believe that the way they show actually is a possible way it could have happened?

309 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:43:46pm

re: #308 Obdicut

But Buck, do you believe that the way they show actually is a possible way it could have happened?

No, I think they make money scamming people.

You said:

Speaking of the crazy: What about the 9/11 conspiracy theory do you find possible, Buck? Just the whole thing-- that it's possible that several thousand people conspired in an attack on the American public and kept it silent ever since?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Honest mistake? Only to continue it after I had already tried to clear it up.

310 uncah91  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:43:54pm

re: #306 Buck

Loose change takes a small part of what happened and then tries to show a possible way it could have happened. They never say it actually happened that way, only that it could have.

In the exact same way you were making up this whole possible way that someone could have a picture of me in my underwear.

It was the third strangest conversation we ever had. AND during it, you called me a truther.

Actually, it's quite clear that he did NOT call you a truther.

311 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:45:51pm

re: #309 Buck

Do you admit that you're not a truther by Obdi's own definition?

312 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:46:35pm

re: #309 Buck

No, I think they make money scamming people.

Whether or not they make money scamming people is kind of irrelevant, but I'm glad to hear you say that they don't actually show a possible way that things could have happened.

Honest mistake? Only to continue it after I had already tried to clear it up.

You may have honestly tried to clear it up, but you did a terrible job of it. You also continually ignored that my definition of truther was someone who believed that things had happened a different way than the official version, rather than someone who believed the scenarios outlined in Loose Change were possible.

So, I didn't call you a truther, definitely not by my definition, and now that you've finally cleared up that you don't think the scenario presented by Loose Changes is even possible, not by your own, apparently, either.

313 uncah91  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 3:50:45pm

re: #311 Adam, Eve and Steve

Do you admit that you're not a truther by Obdi's own definition?

Buck is arguing by straw man of outrageous outrage...

314 Cap'n Magic  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:22:59pm

Who cares about "Obamacare"-give individual access to the Fed!

Are you concerned about growing income inequality in America? Are you resentful of all that wealth concentrated in the 1 percent? I’ve got the perfect solution, a modest proposal that involves just a small adjustment in the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy. Best of all, it will mean that none of us have to work for a living anymore.

For several years now, the Fed has been making money available to the financial sector at near-zero interest rates. Big banks and hedge funds, among others, have taken this cheap money and invested it in securities with high yields. This type of profit-making, called the “carry trade,” has been enormously profitable for them. So why not let everyone participate?
Under my plan, each American household could borrow $10 million from the Fed at zero interest. The more conservative among us can take that money and buy 10-year Treasury bonds. At the current 2 percent annual interest rate, we can pocket a nice $200,000 a year to live on. The more adventuresome can buy 10-year Greek debt at 21 percent, for an annual income of $2.1 million. Or if Greece is a little too risky for you, go with Portugal, at about 12 percent, or $1.2 million dollars a year. (No sense in getting greedy.)

315 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:29:23pm

re: #312 Obdicut

You may have honestly tried to clear it up, but you did a terrible job of it. You also continually ignored that my definition of truther was someone who believed that things had happened a different way than the official version, rather than someone who believed the scenarios outlined in Loose Change were possible.

Ya, it was my fault. AND you don't get to use your random definition now.

You say that you were using your definition, but I explained how you were wrong multiple times.

I said: "I didn't say that I thought it was possible. AND I made that clear when you first accused me of that. I specifically said that "loose change" made that argument. You knew that when you did this a second time."

That is very clear. I even called birthers and truthers CRAZY.

You did call me a truther (and many other things). Maybe you want people to think now that you didn't mean it. I could care less about that.

I gave you two great quotes of what you said with links. It is a fact.

316 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:35:08pm

re: #315 Buck

Ya, it was my fault. AND you don't get to use your random definition now.

It was the definition I used back then, Buck, which you ignored.

You say that you were using your definition, but I explained how you were wrong multiple times.

That doesn't make any sense, Buck. Are you saying my definition of what a truther is is wrong, or something?

You did call me a truther (and many other things). Maybe you want people to think now that you didn't mean it. I could care less about that.

No, I didn't, Buck, and everyone reading it except you can see that. How do you account for that?

I gave you two great quotes of what you said with links. It is a fact.

How do you account for the fact that only you think it's a fact?

317 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:39:29pm

re: #315 Buck

Ya, it was my fault. AND you don't get to use your random definition now.

It's not random, moron. It immediately preceded your exchange about LC.

You did call me a truther

You're a proven liar.

318 Buck  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:48:05pm

re: #316 Obdicut

How do you account for the fact that only you think it's a fact?

Because anyone who would agree with me fears crossing you and Sergey. They know what happens to people who do that.

You did it twice. There was no honest mistake. There are not multiple definitions of truthers.

HOWEVER, that is just like you. I gave you the evidence, and your answer is that I didn't explain myself well enough, and that in your mind then you didn't mean what you clearly state.

Only you are allowed this special "my definition" excuse. One you didn't give back then when I repeatedly protested your characterization of me.

319 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:51:58pm

re: #318 Buck

Because anyone who would agree with me fears crossing you and Sergey. They know what happens to people who do that.

You did it twice. There was no honest mistake. There are not multiple definitions of truthers.

HOWEVER, that is just like you. I gave you the evidence, and your answer is that I didn't explain myself well enough, and that in your mind then you didn't mean what you clearly state.

Only you are allowed this special "my definition" excuse. One you didn't give back then when I repeatedly protested your characterization of me.

Buck, why do you imagine anyone on this board fears crossing Obdicut and Sergey?

It seems sort of a tall order to imagine that a bunch of people posting their thoughts on a political blog should be able to frighten any other posting without it leading to the sort of behavior that Charles brings down the banhammer for...

320 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:56:46pm

re: #291 Buck

Yep, these are absolute facts. I have them documented with links.

You want to pick one?

Too bad you can document what others say, but not back up what you say.

321 Mattand  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 4:57:17pm

re: #42 Charles Johnson

I would have greatly preferred a single payer plan myself. I'm not that crazy about the mandate. It is amusing in a not-amusing way to see the GOP vilifying something that they themselves originally proposed, though.

Glad to see it's just not me that thinks that way. The mandate tends to rankle the primitive libertarian part of my brain.

Also, the next time someone tells me that the GOP doesn't reflexively try to undermine Obama at the expense of the country, I'm going to point them to this.

322 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:01:14pm

re: #318 Buck

Because anyone who would agree with me fears crossing you and Sergey.

Oh, what bullshit. It's not like anyone is not free to ignore us.

There are not multiple definitions of truthers.

Yes, Obdi gave his definition right before that exchange started. By that definition he did not call you a truther, since someone expressing a mere remote possibility of a 9/11 CT being true is not a truther by his definition.

It's not only Obdi's definition too. I will readily say that as far as a purely "philosophical" possibility goes, it is possible that 9/11 CTs are true. But as a mere possibility, it is also true that due to quantum fluctuations it may, in principle, happen that monkeys start flying out of your ass.

Possibility is not enough to get called a truther.

323 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:05:44pm

re: #318 Buck

Because anyone who would agree with me fears crossing you and Sergey. They know what happens to people who do that.

What happens to people who do that?

You did it twice. There was no honest mistake. There are not multiple definitions of truthers.

Well, there clearly are. My definition of truther is someone who really believes that the twin towers weren't brought down in the way we know them to be, but instead believe in some government conspiracy to make or allow it to happen.

Your definition, apparently, is someone who believes that could have been the case, but doesn't necessarily believe it was the case.

Why do you think that there's only one definition-- yours?

324 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:09:41pm

wordnick has the definition of truther thus:

[Link: www.wordnik.com...]

n. Person believing that the U.S. government perpetrated or allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wictionary has it as the same.

[Link: en.wiktionary.org...]

325 Achilles Tang  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:09:45pm

re: #323 Obdicut

Your definition, apparently, is someone who believes that could have been the case, but doesn't necessarily believe it was the case.

That's the definition of someone without opinion, or understanding or, for that matter, opinion.

(Kind of like those who end a debate with the comment "we disagree", and are heard from no more, until the next "disagree".)

326 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:31:50pm

Every definition I've been able to find that isn't sympathetic to the truther's point of view defines a truther as someone who believes the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, not someone who simply believes it was a possibility.

327 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 5:40:56pm

Crap wrong thread!

(Former comment redacted)

328 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 6:18:59pm

re: #326 Obdicut

Every definition I've been able to find that isn't sympathetic to the truther's point of view defines a truther as someone who believes the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, not someone who simply believes it was a possibility.

I would add that with a qualifier, like "serious possibility"/"plausible possibility", I think it is fair to call such a person a truther - merely because they may be seriously entertaining such an idea (though maybe hesitating to fully embrace it). But only with a qualifier.

329 Obdicut  Fri, Apr 13, 2012 6:51:39pm

re: #328 Adam, Eve and Steve

Sure. But someone who sees it is a remote possibility I think is either just engaged in a very academic argument, or doesn't really understand the 'theories' proposed. I.e. the theory that the buildings were brought down by 'nanothermite' isn't a possible theory, because no such substance exists.

330 Joanne  Sat, Apr 14, 2012 9:06:52am

re: #123 kirkspencer

Scalia lost his veneer of professionalism in my eyes several years back. But the jaw-dropper in this case was his question of whether he, or perhaps his clerks, would be required to read the entire law. (sorry, "all 2700 pages.").

while it was played for a laugh, I would still have liked hearing, "well, yes. after all, it is what you're judging today."

Agreed. That was a jaw-dropping, mind-numbingly stupid statement. And based on questions/comments, it appeared his clerks didn't do any reading of the actual law, either. It was one of the saddest statements of a justice in recent years.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
High School Gunman Was Homecoming Prince, Students Say
A student recently crowned freshman class Homecoming prince walked into his Seattle-area high school cafeteria Friday and opened fire, killing one person and shooting several others in the head before turning the gun on himself, officials and witnesses said. ...

41 minutes ago
Views: 50 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
Friday Night Random Macro-Natures Texture, Light And Color
As much as I like to drive out to somewhere spectacular in pursuit of good landscape I often find it smart to shoot right at home. It also got me thinking about the kinds of images where most of the ...

1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Views: 63 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Eclectic Cyborg
Emergency message irks Cable subcribers, sends conspiracy theorists into frenzy
Around 8 am this morning my wife started grumbling the TV wasn't working. I reset the U-verse box as per usual but the problem persisted. It was clear right away this was something beyond a typical glitch because of an ...

2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Views: 102 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
FemNaziBitch
#NCVotesEarly: Because of That Time When the #NCGA Spent a Lot of Your Money to Mislead Women.
On DAY TWO of early voting in North Carolina, it's worth remembering (and reminding others to remember) that North Carolina's legislative leadership has doubled-down on CPCs since the last election, pumping hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars into these ...

12 hours, 24 minutes ago
Views: 132 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Lumberhead
Journalists Don’t Like Obama’s Chill Temperament, but It’s Served Him Well - Vox
The hot temperament consequently tends to dominate in the ranks of the media. And the media love nothing quite so much as a politician who shares their disposition. It's not a coincidence that McCain is, on a durable basis, ...

13 hours, 44 minutes ago
Views: 172 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
EiMitch
Cracked: 6 Halloween Pranks for Sociopaths With Unlimited Budgets
cracked.com America's No. 1 holiday celebrating violence and candy is just around the corner, and this year it looks to be better than ever, as the glorious union of art and technology has given us several exciting new ways to ...

2 days, 23 hours ago
Views: 398 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Souliren
Natalie MacMaster Fiddle school
This is a short (under two minute) video of Natalie teaching a technique for "Athole Brose," in Cape Breton style.

5 days, 4 hours ago
Views: 375 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
MichaelJ
Amazing RED Camera Footage Kelly Slater’s 540 Air
More: Amazing RED Camera Footage Kelly Slater's 540 Air There's a reason why people refer to 11-time world champ Kelly Slater as "the king". This clip/maneuver is yet another ground-breaking moment in the history of surfing.

1 week ago
Views: 652 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 6 • Rating: 5
Skip Intro
The Scablands: A scarred landscape as strange as fiction
arstechnica.com

1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 787 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
blah blah ad hominem mumbo jumbo.
Daniel Johnston-True Love Will Find You In The End.
A simple, imperfect, brilliant song, by a fascinating man. Link

1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 685 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

Ladies and gentleman, watch Ruth. All through the show, Ruth has been thinking...Ruth has been thinking? ALL THROUGH THE SHOW??? -- 17 November 1974, Philadelphia