Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nonsense. Your consitution is quite different from ours. As just one example we have a right to guns.

So. . .you think the 2nd Amendment is at all relevant to a constitutional argument against a single payer system? (Or the House bill?)

Fine, be unreasonable.

That's your job, apparently. Like pretending that anything I've said in anyway resembles the statement that I somehow think there is only one political party in the U.S.

When I said, "Be reasonable?" that was a statement expressing shock and incredulity at the accusation. Your post putting words in my mouth that in no way typify anything I've said was completely unreasonable, and you tell me to be reasonable when I object.

 

[mhaze]

You keep claiming that my position is one of ignorance, but it isn't. If someone were to challenge the constitutionality of a law that Congress passed, the burden is on that person to show a constitutional problem. Until someone does that, I don't have to prove anything.....

Yet more positions of ignorance.

1. Who said anything about challenging the constitutionality of a law that Congress passed (or may pass)? The question was whether there was an existing, serious debate on the constitutionality of the health care bill and/or jailtime therein references. Any specific or hypothetical challenge is unrelated to the existence of a serious debate.

...These vague (and legally incorrect) notions that it's not within the powers of Congress to pass a law like this, or jail people for not paying a fine or that it's "socialist" do not comprise anything like a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the bill.....

2. Congress most certainly does "have the power to pass an unconstitutional bill", either intentionally or by error (in that some of the effects are not understood at the time of passing it).

You've brought up a 1942 decision, but why not the 1993 brief?

 

[INRM]

Earthborn,

Parking isn't a punishment either. The fine is.

The fine is for parking in a place that you are not legally allowed to park in either ever, or during the particular time in which you parked...


MHaze,

Oh, there are numerous other reasons. But you've listed a good one there.

It sounded like the primary reason...

By the way, someone has alleged that paying a fine for a parking ticket is somehow similar to paying a fine for not buying national health insurance. This is embarrasingly wrong.

The municipality gets it's powers from the state. The state has those powers not set aside to the federal government. (or arguably not encroached upon and not protested, and the trends thereof).

Arguing the similarity being the fine (of the municipality) and the jailtime (at the federal level for not buying insurance) indicates an ignorance of the differences between these levels of government and their respective duties and empowerments. Constitutionality refers to, generally, the relationship between the individual and the federal government.

So it would be a violation of State's rights?

Yes we can and have added amendments. But "Progressive liberals" don't want to go that route, because they don't represent the sort of majority that can ever get a constitutional amendment passed.

Actually, the Democrats make up 60% of Congress now and are pretty close to the 67% needed to amend the Constitution. The Republican party has become a lot smaller as well so the ability to get 3/4 of the States to ratify the amendment is actually closer than you would think.

They want to enforce their minority view on the whole population through various techniques. One of the more interesting of these is their ignoring or ridiculing the problem of constitutionality in pushing their agenda.

The Republicans under Bush did similar tactics as well. Anybody who criticized their actions in the War on Terror were immediately pounced on as being soft on terror, unpatriotic, exposing the country to greater danger, etc.

More recently, in the last year, we've seen three separate one to two thousand page bills rushed through the congress without time for the legislators to read or understand them.

Which is a major problem...

Basically that's a banana republic fascist type tactic, where it is implicitly asserted that the bills will be approved and passed.

It's a tactic that relies on deliberately flooding a person with so much paperwork that they cannot keep up with it. Sadly our Representatives choose to pass the bills. Personally if I was getting flooded with large bills like these (both the combination of the large page count and the large number of them being put before me all at once) I'd ask for more time, and if that wasn't granted I'd just vote no.

Of course this could end up resulting in the Executive Branch just misusing executive directives to "make law" or claim that Congress is ineffective. It could also result in coercion being used to manipulate our Representatives into passing bills.

I do remember hearing that Congress approved to some degree the Warrantless Wiretapping because they were told by the NSA Director that they would be in imminent harm if they did not.

That would be the conservative view, while the "progressive" would push to pass it, ignore the constitutional issues which he purposefully and knowingly pushes the limits of, and plan to fight the battle of constitutionality when and if it gets to the Supreme Court.

Wouldn't that technically make Bush and Cheney liberals?


Trisket The Kid,

Has he contributed anything to a law journal recently? Is he currently a professor at an accredited law school?

He has wrote a number of books which discuss the erosion of civil liberties in America.


INRM

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yet more positions of ignorance.

Bull.

1. Who said anything about challenging the constitutionality of a law that Congress passed (or may pass)? The question was whether there was an existing, serious debate on the constitutionality of the health care bill and/or jailtime therein references. Any specific or hypothetical challenge is unrelated to the existence of a serious debate.

The OP suggested that the bill passed in the House is unconstitutional.

You've brought up a 1942 decision, but why not the 1993 brief?

I didn't bring up the 1942 decision. It was the central point in the Napolitano piece you urged us to read (at least that's what I got from TrisketTheKid's post).

What 1993 brief are you talking about? Also, a brief is not equivalent to a Supreme Court decision that has been settled law.

 

[mhaze]

MHaze,
It sounded like the primary reason... So it would be a violation of State's rights?

Yes. For the traffic ticket. Although there are incidental places where the Fed can issue traffic tickets - federal reservations of various sorts, military bases, etc. But they can't just walk in and take away the right of a county (legal arm of a state) to issue traffic tickets. One part of this is related to the long standing practice of the state to do so.

For example, take Mass. which has a state sponsered health plan currently (a big failure, but that's a separate issue). The FED comes in and says, "Now we have a plan, so you gotta terminate yours". But the state started their own first, and the powers not specifically given to the fed are delegated to the state.

Little problem there? Note that in actuality, because the Mass. plan is a crippling failure, they would certainly be glad to have the Fed pre opt it. But your question was about constitutionality. I've illustrated here a "taking".

Actually, the Democrats make up 60% of Congress now and are pretty close to the 67% needed to amend the Constitution.....

That would be the method to make something clearly constitutional. Anything can be added and old items deleted by this method. But it remains that progressives don't want to do this. Look at the question of a constitutional amendment for definition of marriage - it is exactly what progressives don't want. What they want is not typically what the average person wants. And right now, only 36% of Americans want the health bill. (It was 37% when Hillary was pushing a similar product).

.....It's a tactic that relies on deliberately flooding a person with so much paperwork that they cannot keep up with it. Sadly our Representatives choose to pass the bills. Personally if I was getting flooded with large bills like these (both the combination of the large page count and the large number of them being put before me all at once) I'd ask for more time, and if that wasn't granted I'd just vote no.

Of course this could end up resulting in the Executive Branch just misusing executive directives to "make law" or claim that Congress is ineffective. It could also result in coercion being used to manipulate our Representatives into passing bills.

Simply stated, BANANA REPUBLIC. Particularly since we are talking about spending more than we've got, the dollar declining, a serious economic depression.

Wouldn't that technically make Bush and Cheney liberals? INRM

I wasn't aware there was any question about that whatsoever.

 

[Blue Mountain]

(snip) ... And right now, only 36% of Americans want the health bill. (It was 37% when Hillary was pushing a similar product).

Where's the 36% number coming from? I have two sources that say it's higher than that:

A poll reported in The Daily Iowan puts support at 48%.

A poll reported by The Boston Globe also shows 48% support and 49% opposed.

I view those numbers as disturbingly weak, especially when the enormous gaps that currently exist in the US health insurance system are taken into consideration.