| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10145
Location: SEA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yeah, don't stick your neck out too far. That bit where you mentioned that the commerce clause exists-- that was really going out on a limb. All the way up to high school level.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Baaahb
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 15750
Location: Ponderosa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
10th amendment and commerce clause/taxing powers are two sides of the same coin. the issue under the 10th is whether the federal power is given by other sections of the Constitution...so it's the exact same question
health care is the biggest portion of our GNP by industry sector and many travel across state lines for health care...I know I would have no problem finding Obamacare is included within the commerce powers 
I don't know if there are also due process or other constitutional issues... and reading the news stories is no help
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baaahb wrote: | | 10th amendment and commerce clause/taxing powers are two sides of the same coin. the issue under the 10th is whether the federal power is given by other sections of the Constitution...so it's the exact same question |
What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miked
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 865
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark wrote: | Jesus H Kreest. The inflammatory BS is just thick and deep, and without some intelligent thoughtful discussion of our differences, f(^' it, might as well bust out the guns and start shooting.
IMHO, the mandate will be struck down by virtue that it requires the public to buy a 'private' insurance product which is fundamentally different than funding for public schools/compulsory education, roads, etc.... Other provisions will stand. In the end, it will revert to a states rights issue. Within a decade, groups of states will block together and invest in regional single payer systems that reflect the values and the needs of their constituents. The PNW will have a very different system than the southeast. That's fine with me. I no longer believe that we have enough common values and shared cultural interests to maintain the current union. A constitutional amendment to allow the peaceful dissolution of the union? I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'd like one that says that no state can receive more federal money than they pay. In the end, the sad thing is, we're imploding by choice, not necessity. OK. All done. Small 'r'-ant's over. Flame away. |
good points mark, after all Romneycare has 84% approval by Massachusetts residents.
I dont think we'll ever be able to limit the amount of federal dollars a state receives to what they've paid but that would be fair.
After HCR perhaps there will be arguments to the SCOTUS battling the legality of medicare and social security. Could Obama be the man that killed social security and medicare? With a fairly conservative supreme court, and a very conservative public perhaps we're witnessing the end of an era and in 10 years medicare, social security, and any sort of health care support from the federal govt will be history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10145
Location: SEA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baaahb wrote: | | and reading the news stories is no help |
Why would it be? If they strike down, the majority will have to invent some heretofore unmentioned line that this legislation crossed. Might as well read some tea leaves to figure out exactly what that will be.
Federal regulations can compel corporations (people!) to buy stuff, but they can't compel people to buy stuff. Especially Broccoli. That'll be a fun one to read. There will be three concurring opinions all throwing different shit against the wall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10145
Location: SEA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miked wrote: | | After HCR perhaps there will be arguments to the SCOTUS battling the legality of medicare and social security. Could Obama be the man that killed social security and medicare? With a fairly conservative supreme court, and a very conservative public perhaps we're witnessing the end of an era and in 10 years medicare, social security, and any sort of health care support from the federal govt will be history. |
If they strike down, it's questionable whether the favorite conservative plans to replace Social Security and Medicare will be tenable.
Bush plan for the privatization of Social Security? Why, that's the feds compelling you to buy retirement products.
Ryan plan for Medicare? The feds compelling you to buy insurance again.
copulating ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | If they strike down, the majority will have to invent some heretofore unmentioned line that this legislation crossed. Might as well read some tea leaves to figure out exactly what that will be.
Federal regulations can compel corporations (people!) to buy stuff, but they can't compel people to buy stuff. Especially Broccoli. That'll be a fun one to read. There will be three concurring opinions all throwing different shit against the wall. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | | miked wrote: | | After HCR perhaps there will be arguments to the SCOTUS battling the legality of medicare and social security. Could Obama be the man that killed social security and medicare? With a fairly conservative supreme court, and a very conservative public perhaps we're witnessing the end of an era and in 10 years medicare, social security, and any sort of health care support from the federal govt will be history. |
If they strike down, it's questionable whether the favorite conservative plans to replace Social Security and Medicare will be tenable.
Bush plan for the privatization of Social Security? Why, that's the feds compelling you to buy retirement products.
Ryan plan for Medicare? The feds compelling you to buy insurance again.
copulating ridiculous. |
I love it when slobberface gets all pissed off. He doesn't even understand the architecture of the debate so he just makes shit up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10145
Location: SEA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus, you're vapid, windsock. At least try to come up with something less copulating inane. "doesn't understand the architecture of the debate?" Another empty phrase you picked up at Tijuana Law?
You could join the "debate," you know. Maybe take a step or two beyond such fascinating revelations like the existence of the commerce clause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoOneInParticular
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 3608
Location: VT
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seems to me the commerce clause covers HCR and that the 10th amendment is what it is about because you can make a case that you can't regulate people simply because they exist, at the federal level - aka police powers, which are granted to the states.
second, if the commerce clause is used to over turn, then a shit load of legislation since the new deal would be up for litigation under the commerce clause. not sure the court want to go there |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10145
Location: SEA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | police powers, which are granted to the states. |
Sure they are. Glad you're on willy's side. I'm sure Scalia's all over that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You clearly don't understand it, SlobberBoy. You mix first amendment jurisprudence with commerce clause jurisprudence, you draw a stupid (and probably false) analogy to the Ryan Plan and you make it sound as if the individual mandate wouldn't be anything even in the least bit unprecedented. Support it/Don't support it but don't just mimic shit you hear in the echo chamber of the left-wing blogosphere. You're such an annoying little shit. Are you embarrassed that you follow your successful wife around from one city to another like a pathetic little lap dog? Is she on to you yet? Does she know you spend your days spewing about shit you don't understand - and getting really, really worked up about it? Gotta run Slobber Boy! You sit in here and drool on yourself; I'll be back in a few hours to kick you in the teeth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rsireland3
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 17714
Location: EL/R -6.12, SL/A -8.15 in NW VT and slightly south of the Poutine Curtain
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoOneInParticular wrote: |
second, if the commerce clause is used to over turn, then a shit load of legislation since the new deal would be up for litigation under the commerce clause. not sure the court want to go there |
That's the more serious issue.
_________________
| rl wrote: | | Kinda like post first then smoke crack |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoOneInParticular
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 3608
Location: VT
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | | NoOneInParticular wrote: | | police powers, which are granted to the states. |
Sure they are. Glad you're on willy's side. I'm sure Scalia's all over that one. |
actually I'm not.
i think it should stand. I think HCR is a start to reforming health care. Nationalized care won't fly, so this a step to keep private insurance in the game, and spread risk enough so that those that need to be covered have a chance at purchasing an affordable plan.
second, the poster assumed to be FHW, gives credence to the commerce clause.
I just don't think the commerce clause is the main issue, but I don't know shit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | second, the poster assumed to be FHW, |
Assumed? Mitch banned FHW for beeing mean to some tool on the Happy Forum. Now I'm stuck with this.
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | I just don't think the commerce clause is the main issue, but I don't know shit. |
It's a Commerce Clause issue, dude, as far as I can tell. But I'm not a Constitutional scholar like Slobberface.
Anyway, I really have to go. Have fun playing with Slobber Boy - notice how he jumped on you the moment he thought you might be even slightly agreeing with something I said? What a freak. Bye Bye Slobberface! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
