Government needs limits, but given the state of affairs in the world, not just in this country, I think we the people have to have a strong, effective, and efficient central government.

Or else no amendment will change the united states of the Koch brothers, or the united states of Prudential, or the united states of BP, or the united staes of shell oil, or the united states of the bank of america.

We already have the united states of the national rifle association, I mean come on big money owns it all as it is. Would you rather have a nanny state, or slavery, and subjugation by the rich business interests?

I want the rules we live by to be constitutional. It's your side that think it is a living breathing document where the things written are different.

But the genious of the document was that the Founders foresaw the need to change the document to reflect changing times. They even envisioned a day when the People would find the Constitution obsolete .(like that nut job justice Ginsberg who goes around the world telling countries not to use ours as a model) . The Founders saw that too and made provisions for a Constitutional convention to make wholesale changes.
The problem is that these provisions are not used .

There are also provisions for legal remedies, if you have standing to bring it and those provisions ARE used. You don't need a new amendment to define the language, intent, which is highly subjective, or standing, which is not that clear cut either.

My only regret, NO CAMERAS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

So, those are the choices, huh? Obamacare or liberty?? Frankly, giving a sick person a chance at life, is spreading a LOT of liberty around, but that's just me.

---

The Nancy Pelosi argument. You know you've really been stretching your arguments pretty thin lately.

It all boils down to which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on, left or right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You know you've really been stretching your arguments pretty thin lately.

---

Hello again, Steve:

My arguments never varied.. From the git, I NEVER understood WHY you guys were against making sure everybody got decent health care... Wondering who would PAY for it is a legitimate concern, but simply to DENY your fellow citizen access to health care is despicable.

Nothing has changed. It's STILL despicable.

Oh, I know you guys are STILL living with the fantasy that your cancer will be treated at your local emergency room. I don't know WHY you believe that crap...

excon

My argument has never wavered either, no one is denied access to health care. But Obamacare is damn sure making mine more expensive mine AND destroying the first amendment in the process. But again, what's a little thing like the first amendment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

no one is denied access to health care.

---

If they can afford it, many can't.

That's a convenient myth, NK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That's a convenient myth, NK.

---

None are so blind as those who will no see:

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

Barely Hanging On: Middle-Class and Uninsured

Insured but bankrupt: The hidden side of health care costs

The subject even has it's own Wikipedia entry LOL: Medical debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

But in reality Tom it is a tax, becuase it is being imposed in a manadtory manner, that makes it a poll tax, but with specifics about the way it can be spent. Too much pussyfooting around the edges here

---

Today they heard argument for 2 hours ,and it appears ,because they intend to proceed with the case ,that they recognize that the penalty for not purchasing insurance is indeed a penalty ,and not a tax.
This will create a problem for the Adm because they have said that the power to impose a fine is under the Congressional taxing authority of the Constitution.

Had they decided it was a tax ,then by law ,there would be no standing to take on Obamacare in court since no 'tax' aka penalty will be imposed.. yet .(according to the Anti-Injunction Act no one can challenge a tax until a tax has been imposed... if the Judges wanted to punt on the issue ,they could've said there was no standing for a challenge at this time).

In speaking of the mandate, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli frequently used tax and penalty interchangeably ,and was challeged by a few of the Justices ;especially Alito. Kagan tried to lead Verrilli through the minefield of his gaffs ;but he didn't get the hint.
Justice Stephen Breyer said "Congress has nowhere used the word 'tax.' What is says is 'penalty.' Moreover, this is not in the Internal Revenue Code but for purposes of collection."
"[The penalty is] "not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement." That it's being "collected in the same manner as a tax doesn't automatically make it a tax."

Both the administration and those who filed the suits both want SCOTUS to hear the case so I'm not quite sure why it took so long on this issues except perhaps that both sides were preparing the battlefield for tomorrow's hearing.

After listening to the audio and reading the transcripts ,I'm a little more optimistic about the mandate to purchase insurance being declared unconstitutional .
Tomorrow they wrap it up . The big issue will be severability . If they declare the mandate unconstitutional will the rest of Obamacare go down .

I addressed that issue here :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...al-534343.html

Hello again, tom:

It doesn't sound good for the law. I think a defeat will hurt Obamas chances for reelection... The conservatives KNOW that... Don't tell me they don't make POLITICAL calculations. Balls and strikes - CRAP!

The good news, is that the public option looks like it'll be the one to replace Obamacare anyway. It should have been the way from the git.

excon

I don't think they will strike it down, even with the weak showing by the government. The reason is that this is no different than when social security, and the new deal where implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The reason is that this is no different than when social security, and the new deal where implemented.

---

Hello tal:

I think it's different. Here's why: (1) There WAS a time when the court DID call balls and strikes. Now, they're as partisan as ever. (2) We have a BLACK president who is LOATHED by the right. (3) When I said partisan, I meant BEYOND the pale. This group of right wingers makes BORK look liberal.

excon

I would have to see how the public option is constructed ;but generally agree that IF the country makes the decision to take over a huge sector of the economy ,that a public option would most likey be a constitutional alternative .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

IF the country makes the decision to take over a huge sector of the economy ,that a public option would most likey be a constitutional alternative .

---

Hello again, tom:

If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix. Surly, the parts of the law that people LIKE and KNOW about will remain, and that will NEED to be paid for. Those are that insurance companies can't deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, keeping children on their parents policy's till they're 26, and I seriously doubt whether the country will abide dropping 30 million people from health insurance...

So, if we can find a way to PAY for that stuff, I'm all ears. Oh, I have a way.

excon

Sour grapes aside implicit is Excon's reply ; the reason we have social security is because Roosevelt played hardball with the court. The threat of packing the court was always in the back of their mind. Balls and Strikes ? They cowered under the threat . He was not successful in the court packing plan. But the net result was the same . He achieved a significant shift in policy direction in SCOTUS and a win in 'Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis' .

Quote:

---

If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix.

---

Well there are other challenges ,but that is the big one.. I'll see how arguments go today on the severability issue,and challenges on 10th amendment grounds.

We all know what happens if the whole bill goes down, Dramatically higher costs for those that have health care insurance, for which there will be less of. I doubt they want THAT to happen despite the ones that do!

If it goes down, for sure, guaranteed, social security, and medicare are next. What you think the right will stop at health care?? I don't.

Our laws have to be constitutional.. bottom line. If the mandate is constitutional then there are no limits to what the government can do .There were ways to do all this without the power grabs ,deceptions and sleigh of hand that the Dems pulled .