U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny how you have to apply a 1770s constitution to a modern country. Stuff in there refers to muskets and sailing ships.

Parts of the British Constitution goes back to 1215. The age of good ideas does not make them bad ideas.

[Coito ergo sum]

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -

http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-oba ... unishment/

Law Clerks cringing at that last two questions...

Then Justice Kagan said:

I mean, we have never suggested that we're ... going to try to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parlaimentary shenanigans that go on across the street....

Instead, we look at the text that's actually given us. For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks.

(Scalia has always been adamantly opposed to looking at the legislative history, instead preferring to focus just on the text of the law.)

Flashback - We have to pass Obamacare, so that you can find out what is in it! http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/vid ... -is-in-it/

Obviously we're still working on the finding out what's in it part!

The context of Scalia's blurb was "severability." His question implies that it would be too cumbersome and unwieldy to try to re-write the statute so that the offending provisions could be excised,letting the remainder survive.

Kagan said, "well, half a loaf is better than no loaf."

I think a better analogy is, "A car with no engine is not a car."

If they cut the heart out of this legislation, then I don't think they can determine the heart is severable from the body and the body can go on and live the rest of its life. It's dead.

It was a dishonestly crafted law anyway. Basically, the Administration and Congressional leadership knew that they could not get a law passed that raised tax revenue to pay for health insurance, and awarded credits to those who were determined to not have the means to pay. So, they went with a mandate, so they could argue that "everyone is going to pay, where there were freeloaders before." But, that isn't really what is happening, since they exempt people making under $X per year from paying, and shift the burden to others. So, those who aren't paying now, are for the most part still not going to be paying after Obamacare kicks in. Then, if someone doesn't buy health insurance, they impose a stiff "penalty" which the government wanted to consider a penalty when it suited them, and a tax when it suited them.

The biggest issue seems to be a question of what the Justices called - Justice Kennedy called - a fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and the government.

In my opinion, if this fundamental change is allowed,it basically eliminates any limitation in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think at that point, we ought to have a Constitutional Convention, and hash a new one out. It's long past time to move on from the 1780's.

[Tyrannical]

In my opinion, if this fundamental change is allowed,it basically eliminates any limitation in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think at that point, we ought to have a Constitutional Convention, and hash a new one out. It's long past time to move on from the 1780's.

You'll never see one

Once a Convention is declared, there is no telling what they could come up with. Nothing is "hands off"
Congress and Senate have no involvement, delegates are elected by State legislatures.
Small States such as Alaska have just as much say as large ones like New York or California.

[Ian]

Funny how you have to apply a 1770s constitution to a modern country. Stuff in there refers to muskets and sailing ships.

Parts of the British Constitution goes back to 1215. The age of good ideas does not make them bad ideas.

True, but sometimes ideas that were once considered good do not age like fine wine. Sometimes the passage of time exposes them to be increasingly obsolete - and the more time goes on, the more revered they are by reactionary minds who naturally resist change, thus making them harder to repeal or modify into something more practical.

Naturally, a couple of specific ideas come to mind...

[Coito ergo sum]

Sometimes, yes, that is true. However, the slam from Tero was that it is "funny" how a modern country would apply 18th century stuff to the present day.

If we created a constitution today, we'd not make one the same way. Jefferson acknowledged that, and he was so unwedded to his own ideas, that he advocated changing it every generation or so. It's not carved in stone.

Some principles, though, like limited government and protection of the rights of human beings are quite good. Separation of powers, so as to not concentrate power too centrally, given the corrupting tendency of power. All good stuff, it seems. I also like the way the US Constitution is about the size of a pamphlet. The long drawn out "codes"that pass for constitutions in some countries don't seem to be as useful. The Constitution should be something the average citizen can read through slowly in under an hour or so. One can breeze through the US constitution probably in 15 minutes quickly. I like that. Lines of authority should be drawn broadly, and then politics should take over within those lines. Clarity is important. I think that the US Constitution, partly due to changing language and usages and context, and partly due to inherent vagueness built in, is sometimes not very clear.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, let the spinning begin! Preemptively, even!

LOL - what a laughably self-serving article: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/22627 ... econd-term

Yes, yes...now the Supreme Court is a "Tea Party Court" and they couldn't possibly render a fair decision. So, now it isn't a bad thing to, how do they put it? Undermine the functions of government?

Why would such scathing indictments come out now, along with Reid's nonsense that striking down Obamacare would actually be a win for Obama....?

Well, for this reason:

Also in 2004, future Chief Justice John Roberts, then a Supreme Court attorney, noticed that justices ask more questions of the side that ultimately loses in 86 percent of cases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... case_.html

Answer, the questions indicated that Obamacare, at least the individual mandate, is headed south. So, preemptive damage control -- delegitimize the Court - they are the bad guys - nothing wrong with Obamacare -- it's the Tea Party Supreme Court that wants to deprive you of healthcare.

it is so predictable, and laughable. Let's see if they can convince the voting public of it.

[Seth]

In my opinion, if this fundamental change is allowed,it basically eliminates any limitation in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think at that point, we ought to have a Constitutional Convention, and hash a new one out. It's long past time to move on from the 1780's.

You'll never see one

Once a Convention is declared, there is no telling what they could come up with. Nothing is "hands off"
Congress and Senate have no involvement, delegates are elected by State legislatures.
Small States such as Alaska have just as much say as large ones like New York or California.

Not really. A Constitutional Convention can be convened for a specific purpose and limited to that purpose.

The obvious way to resolve this issue is not a Constitutional Convention however, it's quite simply a Constitutional Amendment that modifies the Commerce Clause. That's eminently doable.

First, there could be a specific amendment prohibiting the Executive Branch and Congress from exercising regulatory control or power over health care, which would make it clear that the States are in charge of such regulation, which would be a simple affirmation of the 10th Amendment.

But better yet would be to amend the Commerce Clause to bring Congress back under the controls that the Founders intended, which is to amend the Commerce Clause to say explicitly that the ONLY power to "regulate" commerce "among the several states" that Congress shall have is that Congress and Congress alone (meaning it cannot delegate that power to the Executive Branch or any administrative agency within the government) will be the arbiter of disputes brought to Congress by the legislatures of the several states, and only by those elected bodies that involve disputes about the actual movement of goods or persons across state lines, and that both Congress and the Executive Branch shall have no other powers over commerce within or among the States.

Such an amendment would bring the current Progressive practice of creating the Imperial Executive State to a screeching halt and would literally overnight eliminate about 90 percent of all federal government agencies and employment.

[Seth]

And, let the spinning begin! Preemptively, even!

LOL - what a laughably self-serving article: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/22627 ... econd-term

Yes, yes...now the Supreme Court is a "Tea Party Court" and they couldn't possibly render a fair decision. So, now it isn't a bad thing to, how do they put it? Undermine the functions of government?

Typical Progressive whining as proven by this quote from the article:

Now comes the historic decision on health reform — which could reach far beyond the case to fray the whole fabric of progress in modern America.

Yes, indeed this decision could fray, and hopefully destroy the whole fabric of progressIVISM in America. Progressives are livid that the Supreme Court, which was just fine and dandy with them when it was a hard-left liberal court back in FDR's and Woodrow Wilson's day and was unconstitutionally upholding Progressive legislation, has the temerity to actually look at the Constitution and consider the fundamental precept of our entire system of government, which is that of LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POWER not the Progressive ideal of an unlimited and unrestrained Imperial Executive State where the President holds plenary power to do whatever the fuck he thinks is good for America.

Why would such scathing indictments come out now, along with Reid's nonsense that striking down Obamacare would actually be a win for Obama....?

Well, for this reason:

Also in 2004, future Chief Justice John Roberts, then a Supreme Court attorney, noticed that justices ask more questions of the side that ultimately loses in 86 percent of cases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... case_.html

Answer, the questions indicated that Obamacare, at least the individual mandate, is headed south. So, preemptive damage control -- delegitimize the Court - they are the bad guys - nothing wrong with Obamacare -- it's the Tea Party Supreme Court that wants to deprive you of healthcare.

it is so predictable, and laughable. Let's see if they can convince the voting public of it.

Yup, the Progressives are in full attack mode right now.

[Tyrannical]

In my opinion, if this fundamental change is allowed,it basically eliminates any limitation in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think at that point, we ought to have a Constitutional Convention, and hash a new one out. It's long past time to move on from the 1780's.

You'll never see one

Once a Convention is declared, there is no telling what they could come up with. Nothing is "hands off"
Congress and Senate have no involvement, delegates are elected by State legislatures.
Small States such as Alaska have just as much say as large ones like New York or California.

Not really. A Constitutional Convention can be convened for a specific purpose and limited to that purpose.

That's debatable.
In fact, the last time such a convention was called they clearly violated the intended purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. The Government would simply have no authority to stop them if they chose to open the debate. Passing an amendment requires 3/4 states. Looking at population numbers, the twelve most populace states representing 56% of the population could out voted by the rest of the States containing only 44%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... population
What's interesting is that since minorities are concentrated in the top twelve populated States, White votes would radically skew their political power versus population.
For example, not needing the approval of the top four populated States of California, Texas, New York, and Florida would decimate Hispanic and Jewish influence. Two thirds of blacks reside in the top twelve most populated States.

[Coito ergo sum]

A Convention may be convened and only propose one or more amendments. It doesn't have to rehash the whole thing. But, once the Constitutional Convention is convened, I think it has the power to make whatever amendments it wants. That is by recollection -- I haven't re-read the provision in the Constitution.

Regardless of whether an amendment is done through Congress or by Convention, it has to be approved by 3/4 of the states.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if 'affordable' means 'more expensive' then we're all set -- http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/27/h ... nce-costs/

[Seth]

Well, if 'affordable' means 'more expensive' then we're all set -- http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/27/h ... nce-costs/

No shit Sherlock. Of course Conservatives have been saying this all along but the mindless liberal proles that voted for Obama were incapable of understanding what was going to happen even after being told in simple terms a child could understand.

[Ian]

Cherry pick right-wing sites all you like. The CBO says you're thoroughly wrong. So nyer.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kathleen Sebelius -- right winger.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/07/why-o ... -insurance