CNN Breaking News — President Obama signs landmark health care reform bill into law.
58 thoughts on “Twitter: CNN Breaking News …”
Brendan Loy
EVERYBODY PANIC
Sully
nope, don’t panic… just look forward to the day when this so-called Constitutional expert gets embarrassed by the Supreme Court for turning moronic when it comes to considering the Constitution on political issues.
Brendan Loy
On what grounds do you believe the bill will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? By the real Supreme Court, mind you, not some conservative/libertarian fantasy pre-New Deal Supreme Court.
yeah, i read it when you linked to it earlier. i think it’s quite funny that you find that article a good representation of your argument. if that’s the best defense of this law that they’re going to come up with, it increases the chances of an overturn tenfold.
Brendan Loy
I ask again, on what grounds do you believe the bill will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? And how much money would you be willing to bet on that expected result? I would happily bet $50 (which is an entire month’s worth of my “fun money,” the way Becky and I do our budget) that it will NOT be held unconstitutional by SCOTUS. And I’m tempted to bet even more than that. You are really letting your personal beliefs and political opinions get in the way of clear-headed analysis. It would be STUNNING if this bill were ruled unconstitutional. It would overturn decades upon decades of settled law. You might disagree with those precedents, but they are quite clear, and to set them aside would, as the linked author says, be a constitutional revolution. What you’re saying is the equivalent of predicting that a #16 seed will beat a #1, because you really like the #16 seed and you want them to succeed. I recognize that you think the law is terrible and you want to see it overturned, but it’s Not. Gonna. Happen.
look, i don’t have hours of time like you to unwrap every little detail of every possible argument, but here’s an article that, while somewhat granting you the precedent, makes a few of the legitimate arguments against its constitutionality.
regarding your “expert” Mr. Balkin:
1) he starts off by basically arguing that the term “individual mandate” is misleading because it doesn’t require 2 year-olds to purchase insurance… and because it doesn’t required people who already have insurance to purchase insurance. he was obviously trying to incease his word count. well then i guess the red-light laws of this land aren’t an “individual mandate” either because they don’t require the kid in the back seat to stop at red lights. seriously??? he obviously knows most people don’t like the mandate being created, so he’s trying to make it sound better.
2) then he tries to say it’s not even a mandate because it just taxes you if you don’t do it… similar to getting a penalty for not filing your tax return on time. again, just trying to make it SOUND nice. filing your tax return on time IS mandated for anyone who might possibly owe taxes to the government… and it’s considered a legit mandate because there’s obvious authority given for imposing taxes, and the filing is just part of the process. so the “tax” for not filing is a penalty for not following a MANDATE… same as the “tax” for not purchasing insurance is a penalty for not following a MANDATE. so it IS a MANDATE. i know this seems minor, but it just makes it obvious that this guy isn’t thinking logically.
the difference between the two scenarios is that there is not obvious authority given for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.
3) the analogy to polluters who don’t install pollution-control equipment? again, are you serious??? how about a tax on non-polluters who don’t install pollution-control equipment? because this new “tax” is on the equivalent of BOTH groups. contrary to what some people believe, not everyone who doesn’t have insurance ends up using healthcare services that are paid for by other taxpayers. these “non-polluters” would be taxed for not “installing pollution-control equipment.”
4) “It is a tax on events: individuals who are not exempted are taxed for each month they do not pay premiums to a qualified plan.”
nope, it is NOT a tax on events… it is a tax for doing nothing when not legitimately required to do something… it is a tax on a guy sitting at home minding his business.
5) “The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies.”
see #3 above. this guy must realize that he’s ignoring a significant group of people in this country. there are plenty of uninsured people who don’t cost the rest of us a dime… and those specific people most like even reduce the cost for the rest of us, even if an insignificant amount. the amount collected from those people for health goods and services is almost universally more than from insured people… hence decreasing the amount doctors and pharm NEED to collect from others in order to make it worth staying in business.
6) “Ordinary income taxes and excise taxes that are levied on a large population and that regulate people’s behavior by taxing their income or consumption choices are not considered takings under the Constitution. The individual mandate is just such a tax — not a taking.”
it is TAKING from people (call it a tax if you like) because of their choice to NOT be a consumer of something.
here’s a question for you. would it be ok for Congress to mandate that all “non-exempt” individuals purchase life insurance?
Sully
here’s the article that i mentioned & failed to provide a link for:
Brendan – some problems that I have with it from a consistency/Constitutionality point of view (and as a much-read non-lawyer whose expertise is taking rules and situations and fixing them so that they work) …
1) Something has a bunch of these separate States Attorneys General putting in what seems to be a lot of time preparing to fight something that *you* deem to be “settled law” (yup, sorta like a belief in “settled science”) … what might these several and divers Attorneys General know that you and *I* don’t ?
Now I start using jargon/language loosely/imprecisely, precisely because I am not part of the legal profession …
2) There seems to be a belief, to which you seem to subscribe, that this is justifiable under the Commerce Clause … that Congress is merely regulating “InterState Commerce” … given that one of the major suggestions for Health Insurance Reform was to allow insurance companies to sell policies/coverage across State lines, yet that was fought against by the Dems, woudl the correct regulation of InterState Commerce not have been to allow coverage across State lines, rather than the ill-understood major legislation just signed ?
3) Is there a Roe vs Wade analogous potential for it to be struck down on the basis of it is telling someone what to do with his/her own body related to his/her own health ? Roe vs Wade made it the woman’s choice – why do you believe that SCOTUS will see this one so radically differently ?
4) As I understand it, more than one State has already passed legislation stating that no resident (citizen? – I don’t know exact wording) can be required to buy health insurance … why is SCOTUS likely to prefer Federal law arrogating to itself jurisdiction over a type of insurance that Federal Law will not permit to provide coverage across State lines ?
On a not-so-legal note, while I doubt that SCOTUS will make such a call, just on actuarial bases, Obamacare cannot work … no Insurance company can afford to be in business if it is required to cover pre-existing conditions without any limitations … there is a reason that you cannot go to an insurance company just after being in an accident and then take out coverage for the state of your vehicle … and I have yet to see any rational answer as to how that part of Obamacare can be made to work … so, if SCOTUS struck it down on *that* basis, as being simply actuarially unworkable, might that be considered as an unConstitutional “taking” from the corporate ‘person’ ?
Joe Mama
Unfortunately I have to disagree with Sully. To find the individual mandate a violation of the Commerce Clause, SCOTUS would likely have to overrule Raich, which gave Congress essentially unlimited power under the “substantial effects” test, as well as back off from numerous other precedents, such as Wickard. That is unlikely given that 5 of the 6 justices who were in the Raich majority are still on the court (the sixth, Souter, has been replaced by another liberal who is just as unlikely to reign in Congress). That said, SCOTUS would have to explicitly hold that the breadth of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause includes requiring an individual to enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service. That is entirely foreseeable, but also unprecedented.
The General Welfare Clause holds out slightly more hope for opponents of Obamacare. First, it’s not at all clear that a monetary penalty for failing to obey the law is a genuine “tax” as required under the GW Clause, rather than a fine under the pretext of a tax. The author Brendan linked to isn’t very persuasive on this point, reiterating simply that it’s either a tax of 2.5% on AGI or a monthly excise tax. Assuming that it is a genuine tax, I’m even less persuaded that it’s an “indirect” income or event tax, rather than a “direct” or capitation tax on individuals that has to be apportioned to state population under the GW Clause. The bill law itself refers to the tax as a “penalty” or “shared responsibility payment” precisely because it is individuals who are funding the new regulations by funneling money through private insurers in the form of premiums. Dressing this up as an income tax merely because it amounts to 2.5% of AGI seems a little absurd, as is the pretense that it’s an event tax because every month that an individual does not pay the premium into a qualified plan is another “event.” I’m not familiar with the case law in this area, but I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on a case such as Hylton that is over 200 years old. The individual mandate strikes me as clearly a tax on individuals, but I could certainly be wrong.
Brendan Loy
Sully, because I actually don’t have hours of time, I’m not going to respond in full, but I’m unswayed by your arguments. Even if you think “my expert” is an idiot, that doesn’t change the precedential realities of the situation, which conservative/libertarian ObamaCare opponents Orin Kerr and Doug Mataconis (and Joe Mama!), among others, also acknowledge.
Anyway… are you going to take me up on the $50 bet, or what? 🙂
Sully
regarding the bet, no, partly because my wife doesn’t believe in gambling (no, not even on a “friendly” bet like this), but also because this thing is going to be a debated issue (in and out of court) for many years, if not decades.
regardless of the precedential realities and what others think, there are many credible people out saying that it is entirely possible that SCOTUS could take certain perspectives that people like you don’t think they will purely based on precedent. it is more than remotely possible that SCOTUS could decide that past grants of authority either don’t actually include this power grab and/or that they were incorrect to grant authority to the entent that they did and will pull it back a bit.
also, based on your argument, one would have to conclude that Roe v Wade doesn’t have a chance in hell of being overturned, and i don’t think any credible person would seriously believe that… they may think that it PROBABLY won’t, but not that there’s almost no chance.
Brendan Loy
I’ll concede that it might be more like betting on a #15 seed than on a #16 seed… maybe. 🙂 Definitely not a #14 or higher, though.
Sully
ps… Happy Dependence Day! it may be the inaugural, but it’s the last one you’re going to celebrate with your socialist representatives in power for awhile.
Brendan Loy
Heh. That’s funny.
gahrie
My take on the Balkin article:
I) He spends a lot of time discussing the House bill. This is off topic and I will ignore it.
II) His argument that this is not an individual mandate:
A) Listing a set of people who are exempt from the mandate does not invalidate the fact that for most people it remains a mandate. Instead it reinforces the fact that it is a mandate for those not exempted.
B) At least four of the exemptions Balkin describes are temporary states, and when that person’s status changes the mandate will cover them.
C) He argues that it is a tax, and not a mandate.
1) He first argues that it is an excise tax, in his words a “tax on transactions or events”. However this is not a tax on a transaction or event, it is a tax on the absence of a transaction or event. The person is not being taxed on something he did, but rather because he didn’t do something. This is not an excise tax.
2) He then argues that it is a penalty tax, a tax for not doing something you are mandated by the government to do. Logically this defeats the whole basis of his argument that it is not a mandate. You can’t be penalized for not doing something you are not mandated to do.
D) If his argument is that the term individual mandate is misleading, why does he then proceed to use the term in the rest of his article?
III) His General Welfare argument
A) The term general welfare had a much different meaning when the Constitution was written than it does today. The general welfare clause originally was a justification for passing laws, not a justification for entitlements.
B) Balkin states:The individual mandate is a tax. Does it serve the general welfare? The constitutional test is whether Congress could reasonably conclude that its taxing and spending programs promote the general welfare of the country
The individual mandate is not a tax. The individual mandate is a requirement to purchase health insurance. The tax is a penalty for not complying with the mandate. The argument is not that the government cannot impose taxes or penalties, it is that the government cannot require you to purchase health insurance. If this bill simply taxed the people to pay for health care this constitutional argument would not exist.
C) As Sully says above his polluter analogy is flawed. To be correct he must instead argue that everyone, polluters and non- polluters alike are forced to pay for pollution control equipment or pay a fine. Indeed it would be more accurate to say that everyone is forced to pay for yearly pollution offsets every year or pay a fine, whether they produce pollution or not. (in any case the analogy would still be flawed)
D) I strongly disagree with his proposition that “the textual argument for Congress’s authority under the General Welfare Clause is obvious and powerful” in this case. He assumes that proposition. His only arguments are the flawed pollution analogy and a flawed definition of the individual mandate.
IV) His Commerce Clause argument:
A) Both of the cases he cites, Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich (both of which I disagree with), are cases where the government prohibited people from taking an action that might affect interstate commerce. This is a case where the government is forcing people to take an action by arguing that their inaction affects commerce. Prohibiting an action is not the same thing as mandating an action.
B) Where is the logical end of this argument? Using this argument the government has a basis to mandate that individuals purchase anything they want because it could affect commerce. Why can’t the government mandate the purchase of a new GM or Chrysler car every four years? Not buying GM or Chrysler products has a huge impact on interstate commerce, especially on other buying their products.
“Because Congress believes that the GM and Chrysler bailouts won’t succeed unless these people are forced to buy GM or Chrysler products, it can regulate their activities in order to make its bailout of GM and Chrysler effective.”
V) In my opinion, the argument is not properly “Will the Supreme Court over turn this law.” sadly, I agree that it is unlikely that there are enough votes to overturn this law. However the argument properly should be “Should the Supreme Court overturn this law?” In that case I think the only answer is yes.
gahrie
To go back to my earlier question Brendan….if the government can mandate you buy health insurance, and tax you for not doing so…where does the limit of government power now lie?
David K.
gahrie, nice unsubstantiated slippery slope argument. Where was your concern when the Patriot Act gave the government the power to know what books you check out from the library? If the government can do that where does the limit of government power now lie?
There is nothing in this health care bill that somehow magically grants the government the ability to become oppresive. Governments can do that regardless. Try addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the actual bill and what it does and does not allow the government to do. Try addressing the changes this makes and why the changes were done. How about answering this question: If the U.S. system was so much more sound financially, why were we spending more per capita on health care than other 1st world nations? (hint: the answer is that the system as it was was broken largely because health care does not work as a free market regulated commodity)
gahrie
the answer is that the system as it was was broken largely because health care does not work as a free market regulated commodity)
Health care was not a free market prior to this bill. Government regulation and government price controls distorted the market.
gahrie
What has happened to those aspects of health care that were relatively free markets?
Optional health cares chooses like plastic surgery have seen their prices plummet as the treatment has steadily improved.
gahrie
DavidK:
If Obamacare is constitutional, why can’t the government mandate you buy a GM or Chrysler car?
Indeed why shouldn’t the government mandate you buy a GM or Chrysler car?
Sully
my question from earlier is still open. would it be ok for Congress to create an individual mandate for the purchase of life insurance?
I’m not clear why people in this thread think that coming up with increasingly (okay, perhaps decreasingly in this thread) outlandish examples of what the government can make you buy, as if it somehow makes a point.
The government could not only force you to pay for, but participate in, a war to take over the entire world. Just because something is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.
Alasdair
Sully – inconvenient questions often go unanswered … you and gahrie are doing a good job in raising pertinent questions … I hope you are more successful in getting your questions answered than I have managed, so far …
gahrie
pthread:
So you answer is that there is nothing preventing the government from forcing you to buy life insurance or a GM or Chrysler car?
That would at least be logically valid if you support Obamacare.
gahrie: generic life insurance, yes, I suppose I can’t think of a constitutional objection to that. Buying a GM or Chrysler car is different. It’s clearly a completely different situation, in which you are forcing a consumer to buy a *specific* brand of car. Now if you asked whether congress can force people to buy a car? I guess they could if they wanted to, to my knowledge.
Of course none of this means what you think it means. In your head you are going, “hurrr… isn’t that ridiculous… hurrr.” (yes, completely with ‘fucking retarded’ noises) and yet I don’t think anyone would disagree that the government can send you off to war on the most ridiculous adventure imaginable (some might argue that’s already happened). So I’ll restate, coming up with ridiculous examples does not help your case.
gahrie
pthread:
I realize that attempting to explain the differences to you between Obamacare and the ability to wage war is futile, but I’ll attempt to anyway.
1) Collecting taxes to pay for war is constitutional. Collecting taxes to pay for healthcare is also constitutional.That is not what Obamacare does. I will admit, if that is what Obamacare did I would still oppose it, but not on Constitutional grounds.
2) Conscripting men (and why don’t women have to register for the Selective Service? Where are the feminists on that one?) to fight a war is not the same thing as forcing people to buy a product they don’t want. One of the explicit duties of the government is to provide for the defense of our nation. There is no duty to provide healthcare.
3) It has always been the left that opposed conscription as being counter to American ideals. It’s almost funny to see you using it to defend government power now.
^ rereading that last paragraph it sounds kind of mean (the ‘fucking retarded’ part). I was make an Rahm joke, if that wasn’t obvious.
Sully
that’s really all we need to know. you have a completely different perspective from us on what the Commerce Clause allows congress to do… and a completely different reading of it from the original intention of the founding fathers.
Obama and the leadership in congress want everyone to believe that there’s really not that much difference between the 2 sides… that there are so many things in these bills that Republicans agree with, why not just vote for it… who cares if there’s a small insurance purchase mandate and a redistribution of wealth here and there. there is a HUGE difference.
invite some friends over, collect up some money from each of them, and order a pizza with all their favorite toppings… and when it arrives, pour a little bit of arsenic on top, and then tell them to dig in after they saw you do it. if you get a response of, “No! order a brand new pizza!,” you’ll realize that the republicans were about as generous as they could possibly be to say, “scratch it and start over.”
gahrie: I think my point entirely went over your head. If you believe the healthcare reforms to be unconstitutional, fine. Argue about those. My point, in its entirety, was that coming up with ridiculous cases does not make your case any more persuasive.
What you are attempting to do is say, “Look at how ridiculous it is! If you believe this, you must believe they can do that!”
My response, simply, has been that the ridiculousness of the extreme to which you can take something like this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the root thing is constitutional.
“and a completely different reading of it from the original intention of the founding fathers.”
I must have a different set of founding fathers than you do.
gahrie
I must have a different set of founding fathers than you do.
Yeah, those Founding Fathers did a lot of writing about the right to healthcare and the right of government to force people to buy things.
Sully
i guess the bright side is that one can still forego health insurance… it’s just going to cost you a full paycheck per year for that “privilege”
Alasdair
pthread #33 and gahrie #34 – you have the same Founding Fathers, mostly … you each learned different things from what others have told you about said Founding Fathers, added to which there are likely also to be differences in how much or how little of the writings of said Founding Fathers you have chosen to read for each of yourselves …
And the older you are, the more likely you are to have actually read what they actually wrote … I coudl be wrong, but I suspect that gahrie is older than pthread, for example …
(gahrie – you also forgot to close your ‘sarc – /sarc’ tags … of course, since you didn’t explicitly open ’em, either, you didn’t *have* to close ’em explicitly)
David K.
Oh goody, the right wing echo chamber is in full force today. Between gahrie, Alasdair, and the new kid on the block Sully I feel like i’ve wandered into a meeting with Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. All we’re missing is Joe Mama and maybe Andrew. The heck with Phoenix or Salt Lake City, Brendan can just offer to host the next Republican National Convention right here in his comment section.
gahrie
It’s nice to see somethings haven’t changed..David K is always ready with a personal attack rather than addressing the issue at hand.
Alasdair: I have no idea what Gahrie has read, but I’ve read the Federalist Papers, various works of Thomas Paine, a smattering of Jerrerson’s letters and his justification for the revolution. Unfortunately I missed his version of the bible, but it’s not too late!
Alasdair
Jim Kelly – WOW ! With *that* on your curriculum vitae, you must have been present for the actual August 2nd signing ! (grin)
Or are you outing yourself as having pthread as your (a?) pseudonym ? (grin)
Joe Mama #12 – you just don’t get no respect, do you ? (bigger grin)
Our David K’s accuracy in action … how can one parody that ?
Alasdair: No, it doesn’t mean I was there, but it should place me as at least a 12 year old on your little scale.
Oh, and I outed myself in another thread. 🙂
Jazz
Hopefully, this will wake up Republicans to the following truth:
Whatever America is, whether we are a center-right, or center-left, or up-down, or reverse-transverse, the one thing we undeniably are is swingers. (Yeah, baby, yeah!). We go both ways, baby. The upshot of this is that, when your party is in power, you need to remake the nation as you wish, cause soon enough the other guys will be in power, and they’ll remake the nation in their way if you don’t first.
Was remembering how the slingers of the BDS meme would often defend Dumbya because he had the right “theories”. Remember that? Bush is a good President, his fans would say, because he had the “right ideas”. What a crock of shit, I said it then, and now it should be crystal clear why “good theories” don’t amount to shit in an executive.
Not that Bush ever got to health care. Not that he was able to take his thumb out of his butt any longer than was required to share his “theory” that, you know, if he had his way, and these things didn’t have to be worked, you know, maybe privatization of social security, or something…all the while the clock was ticking toward the inevitable switcheroo of the swinging American electorate.
In a sense, we conservatives have no one to blame for this odious state of affairs than ourselves. Enamored of popularity contests and substance-free politicians, we have passed on our opportunity to influence policy, and now we are stuck with this distasteful Democratic iteration of universal health care, even though it has been inevitable for nearly a half-century.
Maybe its not too late for us. Let us at least learn from this that its time to put down our Palin pin-up, and move on from the hideous conceit of her suitability as President. Our window in power is always brief. Its time we stopped f***ing up.
David K.
gahrie, you consider being likened to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and/or Bill O’Reilly to be insulting?
gahrie
David K: I know that you consider such a comparison as insulting.
I also know that your post has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion
David K.
I absolutely consider it an insult to be compared to those people, I also think you have the same attitudes towards facts, reasonable disagreement, reality, and objectivity that they do. If you don’t like the comparison, well perhaps you should change your behavior. My comment also served as a warning to anyone who was interested in intelligent discussion, between the three of you right wing idealogues swamping the comments in this thread and busily re-inforcing each others warped views, there wasn’t room for intelligent discussion. I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again, I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate maturity, reasonability and an ability to show that you weren’t simply some partisan hack. You failed, and I’m going to call you on it everytime I see the same behavior in you that is so skillfully laid out here:
If you don’t like it, stop living up to the low examples set by your parties “leaders”.
gahrie
David K:
I suggest you take a course in logic and argumentation. Pay particular attention to the section of fallacies.
Alasdair
gahrie – David K is *already* a veritable Einstein of Fallacies !
The sad thing is that he finds TPM and the like to be convincing …
Jazz
Its been argued, widely, that Obamacare is a boon to the business of Fox News and Right-Wing Radio, as the outraged conservative masses now have a new toy to play with in ginning up their hatred of goddamn liberals. The NPV of Obamacare for Rush Limbaugh is surely quite high.
Of which fact Limbaugh, Ailes, the rest of the MSM right wing must surely be aware. Perhaps this is why they continue to push the turd balloon that a particular candidate is good because s/he has the right ideas, or in Palin’s case, because a bunch of mean old lefties are just trying to take her down, and you should vote her to the Presidency because otherwise those mean old lefties will get their way, and surely you wouldn’t want that!
All the while, those talkers are fully, completely aware – as are all of you – that one such as Sarah Palin surely lacks the intelligence/moxie/sticktoitiveness to see through the slog that is required to remake landmark legislation the way we want. Much like Dubya lacked the same traits. So obviously so, it was laughable.
At the end of the day, the reason I despise Fox News/right wing radio is that, while I find it fun and all to think that Nancy Pelosi is the anti-christ, at the end of the day I really just want to live in a country that is set up along the lines that make sense to me, conservative lines.
Fox News/right wing radio, through the buffoonery they promote, is the enemy of that objective.
Joe Mama
I’m not clear why people in this thread think that coming up with increasingly (okay, perhaps decreasingly in this thread) outlandish examples of what the government can make you buy, as if it somehow makes a point. The government could not only force you to pay for, but participate in, a war to take over the entire world. Just because something is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.
But when the gov’t tries to do something that doesn’t fall within any of its enumerated powers under the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. The gov’t clearly has the authority to make you pay for and participate in a war under its enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8: “to raise and support armies,” so that is a non-starter. The issue is whether the gov’t has the authority under one of its enumerated powers to punish you for not buying a good or service that it thinks you should have. Opponents of Obamacare say that the gov’t has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of living in the U.S. Outlandish examples of what the gov’t could make you buy is obviously a slippery slope argument that underscores the point that allowing the gov’t to do that effectively leaves nothing beyond the reach of Congress. That is the point.
Jazz
Just a quick followup on #48, above – I regret writing that it is fun to hear people making outlandish accusations regarding Pelosi. It is not fun, not at all. This is because Pelosi won, and we lost. Snarking at someone when they win, indeed when they defeat your interest, is not even remotely fun – its pathetic.
But when the gov’t tries to do something that doesn’t fall within any of its enumerated powers under the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional.
Right. Or at least right in the sense that if you believe it to be true then it’s true.
So how does making up ridiculous examples make it any more true? That’s my point. You can make up ridiculous examples about anything that the government can or cannot do. It has no bearing on anything.
There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.
Alasdair
pthread – “There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.” – and that reason is simple – the individual who finds slippery slope arguments to be fallacious is the same individual who has not *experienced* a genuine slippery slope … those of us who have that experience are aware that, the further down a slippery slope one slides, the harder it is to get back up to the top of such a slope, often because slippery slopes tend to become steeper and steeper the further one has slipped down them …
If your only experience with a slippery slope has been cooking oil spilled upon a kitchen floor, then it’s no big deal usually … if your experience has been watching a heavily-loaded lorrytruck gradually and inexorably slip down a slippery slope into Loch Lomond after getting too near the soft-shoulder edge of a road alongside said loch, you understand that “slippery slope” has meaning, and can indicate significant hazard, and is much safer to avoid …
Joe Mama
Right. Or at least right in the sense that if you believe it to be true then it’s true.
It’s right regardless of what I believe. What matters is what the Supreme Court believes, and it has said repeatedly and without equivocation that the federal gov’t cannot act outside of its enumerated powers under the Constitution.
So how does making up ridiculous examples make it any more true?
It doesn’t. You’re missing the point. The “ridiculous” examples don’t make something that is indisputably true any more true. Rather, they are meant to show that the reasoning by which the individual mandate would have to be found constitutional under, say, the Commerce Clause — i.e., that a decision not to buy health insurance is an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce — would necessarily make every action or inaction “economic,” thus rendering Congress’ commerce power effectively limitless.
There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.
And there’s a reason why the slippery slope argument can be logically valid, and why the slope is slippery.
Jazz
Driving all the way back up to Joe Mama @12, in your discussion of the distinction between a “tax” and a “fine dressed up as a tax”, in your view, would opponents of Obamacare find comfort in the possibility that the courts would find the mandate actually to be a fine?
Reason for asking is, in the context of the larger discussion about what Congress can or cannot compel citizens to do, Obamacare seems to be relatively unique in compelling citizens to buy something. While citizens are indirectly compelled to buy something like automobile insurance, for example, they are not of course compelled to drive a car.
Of course, citizens are annually compelled to buy things like new roads or scooters for seniors via income/FICA taxes. Compelling citizens to buy something via penalty for noncompliance feels like it might be something new, though I am admittedly out of my legal depth on this topic.
Sandy Underpants
I guess I shouldn’t be shocked that Republicans just learned that the government imposes it’s will on it’s citizens and has done so for well, forever. Seat Belt laws, increased fees for going over the water and electric ration, speed limits, annual car registration renewals, mandated car insurance, smoking bans, taxes on “junk food”, heavy taxes on cigarettes, the Draft!.
If forcing citizens to pick up a gun and fight a war wasn’t (or isn’t) against the law, then damn, you ain’t got a case on health care.
Alasdair
Hmmm … which brings up another source of wonderment for me …
“the government” – I haven’t been able to find out why, in the US, “the government” seems to be this single seemingly-monolithic entity responsible for all sorts of things … and it seems to mostly become more granular for propaganda reasons …
In California, the government in the person of the Governor (currently GOP) is being blamed in the MSM propaganda for the State’s budgetary woes – even though the budgetary woes are solidly the responsibility of the Legislature – the Governor can veto, but cannot get any budget passed by himself – and the Legislature can and does over-ride the Governor’s Veto …
When there’s a crooked government official, up to and including the point where his/her conviction of a crime is being published in the newspaper, the propaganda stands out even more clearly by whether or not the party affiliation/association of the criminal is mentioned anywhere near the person’s name or even in the first few paragraphs …
What matters is what the Supreme Court believes, and it has said repeatedly and without equivocation that the federal gov’t cannot act outside of its enumerated powers under the Constitution.
We both know the supreme court has previously upheld the constitutionality of social security, and I don’t see social security listed anywhere in the constitution.
would necessarily make every action or inaction “economic,” thus rendering Congress’ commerce power effectively limitless.
Well, if we’re honest with ourselves, in practical terms, it nearly is. That clause is used to justify a lot, for better or worse.
Joe Mama
We both know the supreme court has previously upheld the constitutionality of social security, and I don’t see social security listed anywhere in the constitution.
Right, but only because social security was held to be a valid exercise of Congress’ enumerated power under the Taxing and Spending Clause and the GW Clause under Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, respectively. If SCOTUS did not find that social security fell within one of Congress’ enumerated powers, then it would’ve been held unconstitutional.
The Constitution also doesn’t say sh*t about having an air force (for obvious reasons), but no serious person goes around saying that the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional because it isn’t listed anywhere in the Constitution. Why? Because the T&S Clause includes “provid[ing] for the common defence” (I’m pretty sure there is no case law on this point since the argument is just absurd on its face).
Well, if we’re honest with ourselves, in practical terms, it nearly is. That clause is used to justify a lot, for better or worse.
True, but that certainly doesn’t mean Congress shouldn’t be challenged when it seeks to regulate activity outside the scope of its Commerce power, however broadly that power is construed by the courts. And extreme hypotheticals or “outlandish examples” can be useful rhetorical tools in that regard.
CNN Breaking News — President Obama signs landmark health care reform bill into law.
EVERYBODY PANIC
nope, don’t panic… just look forward to the day when this so-called Constitutional expert gets embarrassed by the Supreme Court for turning moronic when it comes to considering the Constitution on political issues.
On what grounds do you believe the bill will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? By the real Supreme Court, mind you, not some conservative/libertarian fantasy pre-New Deal Supreme Court.
Excuse me, it’s not a “bill” anymore… the law.
P.S. http://j.mp/cdZCoP
yeah, i read it when you linked to it earlier. i think it’s quite funny that you find that article a good representation of your argument. if that’s the best defense of this law that they’re going to come up with, it increases the chances of an overturn tenfold.
I ask again, on what grounds do you believe the bill will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? And how much money would you be willing to bet on that expected result? I would happily bet $50 (which is an entire month’s worth of my “fun money,” the way Becky and I do our budget) that it will NOT be held unconstitutional by SCOTUS. And I’m tempted to bet even more than that. You are really letting your personal beliefs and political opinions get in the way of clear-headed analysis. It would be STUNNING if this bill were ruled unconstitutional. It would overturn decades upon decades of settled law. You might disagree with those precedents, but they are quite clear, and to set them aside would, as the linked author says, be a constitutional revolution. What you’re saying is the equivalent of predicting that a #16 seed will beat a #1, because you really like the #16 seed and you want them to succeed. I recognize that you think the law is terrible and you want to see it overturned, but it’s Not. Gonna. Happen.
P.S. http://volokh.com/2010/03/22/what-are-the-chances-that-the-courts-will-strike-down-the-individual-mandate/
look, i don’t have hours of time like you to unwrap every little detail of every possible argument, but here’s an article that, while somewhat granting you the precedent, makes a few of the legitimate arguments against its constitutionality.
regarding your “expert” Mr. Balkin:
1) he starts off by basically arguing that the term “individual mandate” is misleading because it doesn’t require 2 year-olds to purchase insurance… and because it doesn’t required people who already have insurance to purchase insurance. he was obviously trying to incease his word count. well then i guess the red-light laws of this land aren’t an “individual mandate” either because they don’t require the kid in the back seat to stop at red lights. seriously??? he obviously knows most people don’t like the mandate being created, so he’s trying to make it sound better.
2) then he tries to say it’s not even a mandate because it just taxes you if you don’t do it… similar to getting a penalty for not filing your tax return on time. again, just trying to make it SOUND nice. filing your tax return on time IS mandated for anyone who might possibly owe taxes to the government… and it’s considered a legit mandate because there’s obvious authority given for imposing taxes, and the filing is just part of the process. so the “tax” for not filing is a penalty for not following a MANDATE… same as the “tax” for not purchasing insurance is a penalty for not following a MANDATE. so it IS a MANDATE. i know this seems minor, but it just makes it obvious that this guy isn’t thinking logically.
the difference between the two scenarios is that there is not obvious authority given for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.
3) the analogy to polluters who don’t install pollution-control equipment? again, are you serious??? how about a tax on non-polluters who don’t install pollution-control equipment? because this new “tax” is on the equivalent of BOTH groups. contrary to what some people believe, not everyone who doesn’t have insurance ends up using healthcare services that are paid for by other taxpayers. these “non-polluters” would be taxed for not “installing pollution-control equipment.”
4) “It is a tax on events: individuals who are not exempted are taxed for each month they do not pay premiums to a qualified plan.”
nope, it is NOT a tax on events… it is a tax for doing nothing when not legitimately required to do something… it is a tax on a guy sitting at home minding his business.
5) “The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies.”
see #3 above. this guy must realize that he’s ignoring a significant group of people in this country. there are plenty of uninsured people who don’t cost the rest of us a dime… and those specific people most like even reduce the cost for the rest of us, even if an insignificant amount. the amount collected from those people for health goods and services is almost universally more than from insured people… hence decreasing the amount doctors and pharm NEED to collect from others in order to make it worth staying in business.
6) “Ordinary income taxes and excise taxes that are levied on a large population and that regulate people’s behavior by taxing their income or consumption choices are not considered takings under the Constitution. The individual mandate is just such a tax — not a taking.”
it is TAKING from people (call it a tax if you like) because of their choice to NOT be a consumer of something.
here’s a question for you. would it be ok for Congress to mandate that all “non-exempt” individuals purchase life insurance?
here’s the article that i mentioned & failed to provide a link for:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html
Brendan – some problems that I have with it from a consistency/Constitutionality point of view (and as a much-read non-lawyer whose expertise is taking rules and situations and fixing them so that they work) …
1) Something has a bunch of these separate States Attorneys General putting in what seems to be a lot of time preparing to fight something that *you* deem to be “settled law” (yup, sorta like a belief in “settled science”) … what might these several and divers Attorneys General know that you and *I* don’t ?
Now I start using jargon/language loosely/imprecisely, precisely because I am not part of the legal profession …
2) There seems to be a belief, to which you seem to subscribe, that this is justifiable under the Commerce Clause … that Congress is merely regulating “InterState Commerce” … given that one of the major suggestions for Health Insurance Reform was to allow insurance companies to sell policies/coverage across State lines, yet that was fought against by the Dems, woudl the correct regulation of InterState Commerce not have been to allow coverage across State lines, rather than the ill-understood major legislation just signed ?
3) Is there a Roe vs Wade analogous potential for it to be struck down on the basis of it is telling someone what to do with his/her own body related to his/her own health ? Roe vs Wade made it the woman’s choice – why do you believe that SCOTUS will see this one so radically differently ?
4) As I understand it, more than one State has already passed legislation stating that no resident (citizen? – I don’t know exact wording) can be required to buy health insurance … why is SCOTUS likely to prefer Federal law arrogating to itself jurisdiction over a type of insurance that Federal Law will not permit to provide coverage across State lines ?
On a not-so-legal note, while I doubt that SCOTUS will make such a call, just on actuarial bases, Obamacare cannot work … no Insurance company can afford to be in business if it is required to cover pre-existing conditions without any limitations … there is a reason that you cannot go to an insurance company just after being in an accident and then take out coverage for the state of your vehicle … and I have yet to see any rational answer as to how that part of Obamacare can be made to work … so, if SCOTUS struck it down on *that* basis, as being simply actuarially unworkable, might that be considered as an unConstitutional “taking” from the corporate ‘person’ ?
Unfortunately I have to disagree with Sully. To find the individual mandate a violation of the Commerce Clause, SCOTUS would likely have to overrule Raich, which gave Congress essentially unlimited power under the “substantial effects” test, as well as back off from numerous other precedents, such as Wickard. That is unlikely given that 5 of the 6 justices who were in the Raich majority are still on the court (the sixth, Souter, has been replaced by another liberal who is just as unlikely to reign in Congress). That said, SCOTUS would have to explicitly hold that the breadth of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause includes requiring an individual to enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service. That is entirely foreseeable, but also unprecedented.
The General Welfare Clause holds out slightly more hope for opponents of Obamacare. First, it’s not at all clear that a monetary penalty for failing to obey the law is a genuine “tax” as required under the GW Clause, rather than a fine under the pretext of a tax. The author Brendan linked to isn’t very persuasive on this point, reiterating simply that it’s either a tax of 2.5% on AGI or a monthly excise tax. Assuming that it is a genuine tax, I’m even less persuaded that it’s an “indirect” income or event tax, rather than a “direct” or capitation tax on individuals that has to be apportioned to state population under the GW Clause. The
billlaw itself refers to the tax as a “penalty” or “shared responsibility payment” precisely because it is individuals who are funding the new regulations by funneling money through private insurers in the form of premiums. Dressing this up as an income tax merely because it amounts to 2.5% of AGI seems a little absurd, as is the pretense that it’s an event tax because every month that an individual does not pay the premium into a qualified plan is another “event.” I’m not familiar with the case law in this area, but I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on a case such as Hylton that is over 200 years old. The individual mandate strikes me as clearly a tax on individuals, but I could certainly be wrong.Sully, because I actually don’t have hours of time, I’m not going to respond in full, but I’m unswayed by your arguments. Even if you think “my expert” is an idiot, that doesn’t change the precedential realities of the situation, which conservative/libertarian ObamaCare opponents Orin Kerr and Doug Mataconis (and Joe Mama!), among others, also acknowledge.
Anyway… are you going to take me up on the $50 bet, or what? 🙂
regarding the bet, no, partly because my wife doesn’t believe in gambling (no, not even on a “friendly” bet like this), but also because this thing is going to be a debated issue (in and out of court) for many years, if not decades.
regardless of the precedential realities and what others think, there are many credible people out saying that it is entirely possible that SCOTUS could take certain perspectives that people like you don’t think they will purely based on precedent. it is more than remotely possible that SCOTUS could decide that past grants of authority either don’t actually include this power grab and/or that they were incorrect to grant authority to the entent that they did and will pull it back a bit.
also, based on your argument, one would have to conclude that Roe v Wade doesn’t have a chance in hell of being overturned, and i don’t think any credible person would seriously believe that… they may think that it PROBABLY won’t, but not that there’s almost no chance.
I’ll concede that it might be more like betting on a #15 seed than on a #16 seed… maybe. 🙂 Definitely not a #14 or higher, though.
ps… Happy Dependence Day! it may be the inaugural, but it’s the last one you’re going to celebrate with your socialist representatives in power for awhile.
Heh. That’s funny.
My take on the Balkin article:
I) He spends a lot of time discussing the House bill. This is off topic and I will ignore it.
II) His argument that this is not an individual mandate:
A) Listing a set of people who are exempt from the mandate does not invalidate the fact that for most people it remains a mandate. Instead it reinforces the fact that it is a mandate for those not exempted.
B) At least four of the exemptions Balkin describes are temporary states, and when that person’s status changes the mandate will cover them.
C) He argues that it is a tax, and not a mandate.
1) He first argues that it is an excise tax, in his words a “tax on transactions or events”. However this is not a tax on a transaction or event, it is a tax on the absence of a transaction or event. The person is not being taxed on something he did, but rather because he didn’t do something. This is not an excise tax.
2) He then argues that it is a penalty tax, a tax for not doing something you are mandated by the government to do. Logically this defeats the whole basis of his argument that it is not a mandate. You can’t be penalized for not doing something you are not mandated to do.
D) If his argument is that the term individual mandate is misleading, why does he then proceed to use the term in the rest of his article?
III) His General Welfare argument
A) The term general welfare had a much different meaning when the Constitution was written than it does today. The general welfare clause originally was a justification for passing laws, not a justification for entitlements.
B) Balkin states:The individual mandate is a tax. Does it serve the general welfare? The constitutional test is whether Congress could reasonably conclude that its taxing and spending programs promote the general welfare of the country
The individual mandate is not a tax. The individual mandate is a requirement to purchase health insurance. The tax is a penalty for not complying with the mandate. The argument is not that the government cannot impose taxes or penalties, it is that the government cannot require you to purchase health insurance. If this bill simply taxed the people to pay for health care this constitutional argument would not exist.
C) As Sully says above his polluter analogy is flawed. To be correct he must instead argue that everyone, polluters and non- polluters alike are forced to pay for pollution control equipment or pay a fine. Indeed it would be more accurate to say that everyone is forced to pay for yearly pollution offsets every year or pay a fine, whether they produce pollution or not. (in any case the analogy would still be flawed)
D) I strongly disagree with his proposition that “the textual argument for Congress’s authority under the General Welfare Clause is obvious and powerful” in this case. He assumes that proposition. His only arguments are the flawed pollution analogy and a flawed definition of the individual mandate.
IV) His Commerce Clause argument:
A) Both of the cases he cites, Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich (both of which I disagree with), are cases where the government prohibited people from taking an action that might affect interstate commerce. This is a case where the government is forcing people to take an action by arguing that their inaction affects commerce. Prohibiting an action is not the same thing as mandating an action.
B) Where is the logical end of this argument? Using this argument the government has a basis to mandate that individuals purchase anything they want because it could affect commerce. Why can’t the government mandate the purchase of a new GM or Chrysler car every four years? Not buying GM or Chrysler products has a huge impact on interstate commerce, especially on other buying their products.
“Because Congress believes that the GM and Chrysler bailouts won’t succeed unless these people are forced to buy GM or Chrysler products, it can regulate their activities in order to make its bailout of GM and Chrysler effective.”
V) In my opinion, the argument is not properly “Will the Supreme Court over turn this law.” sadly, I agree that it is unlikely that there are enough votes to overturn this law. However the argument properly should be “Should the Supreme Court overturn this law?” In that case I think the only answer is yes.
To go back to my earlier question Brendan….if the government can mandate you buy health insurance, and tax you for not doing so…where does the limit of government power now lie?
gahrie, nice unsubstantiated slippery slope argument. Where was your concern when the Patriot Act gave the government the power to know what books you check out from the library? If the government can do that where does the limit of government power now lie?
There is nothing in this health care bill that somehow magically grants the government the ability to become oppresive. Governments can do that regardless. Try addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the actual bill and what it does and does not allow the government to do. Try addressing the changes this makes and why the changes were done. How about answering this question: If the U.S. system was so much more sound financially, why were we spending more per capita on health care than other 1st world nations? (hint: the answer is that the system as it was was broken largely because health care does not work as a free market regulated commodity)
the answer is that the system as it was was broken largely because health care does not work as a free market regulated commodity)
Health care was not a free market prior to this bill. Government regulation and government price controls distorted the market.
What has happened to those aspects of health care that were relatively free markets?
Optional health cares chooses like plastic surgery have seen their prices plummet as the treatment has steadily improved.
DavidK:
If Obamacare is constitutional, why can’t the government mandate you buy a GM or Chrysler car?
Indeed why shouldn’t the government mandate you buy a GM or Chrysler car?
my question from earlier is still open. would it be ok for Congress to create an individual mandate for the purchase of life insurance?
I’m not clear why people in this thread think that coming up with increasingly (okay, perhaps decreasingly in this thread) outlandish examples of what the government can make you buy, as if it somehow makes a point.
The government could not only force you to pay for, but participate in, a war to take over the entire world. Just because something is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.
Sully – inconvenient questions often go unanswered … you and gahrie are doing a good job in raising pertinent questions … I hope you are more successful in getting your questions answered than I have managed, so far …
pthread:
So you answer is that there is nothing preventing the government from forcing you to buy life insurance or a GM or Chrysler car?
That would at least be logically valid if you support Obamacare.
gahrie: generic life insurance, yes, I suppose I can’t think of a constitutional objection to that. Buying a GM or Chrysler car is different. It’s clearly a completely different situation, in which you are forcing a consumer to buy a *specific* brand of car. Now if you asked whether congress can force people to buy a car? I guess they could if they wanted to, to my knowledge.
Of course none of this means what you think it means. In your head you are going, “hurrr… isn’t that ridiculous… hurrr.” (yes, completely with ‘fucking retarded’ noises) and yet I don’t think anyone would disagree that the government can send you off to war on the most ridiculous adventure imaginable (some might argue that’s already happened). So I’ll restate, coming up with ridiculous examples does not help your case.
pthread:
I realize that attempting to explain the differences to you between Obamacare and the ability to wage war is futile, but I’ll attempt to anyway.
1) Collecting taxes to pay for war is constitutional. Collecting taxes to pay for healthcare is also constitutional.That is not what Obamacare does. I will admit, if that is what Obamacare did I would still oppose it, but not on Constitutional grounds.
2) Conscripting men (and why don’t women have to register for the Selective Service? Where are the feminists on that one?) to fight a war is not the same thing as forcing people to buy a product they don’t want. One of the explicit duties of the government is to provide for the defense of our nation. There is no duty to provide healthcare.
3) It has always been the left that opposed conscription as being counter to American ideals. It’s almost funny to see you using it to defend government power now.
^ rereading that last paragraph it sounds kind of mean (the ‘fucking retarded’ part). I was make an Rahm joke, if that wasn’t obvious.
that’s really all we need to know. you have a completely different perspective from us on what the Commerce Clause allows congress to do… and a completely different reading of it from the original intention of the founding fathers.
Obama and the leadership in congress want everyone to believe that there’s really not that much difference between the 2 sides… that there are so many things in these bills that Republicans agree with, why not just vote for it… who cares if there’s a small insurance purchase mandate and a redistribution of wealth here and there. there is a HUGE difference.
invite some friends over, collect up some money from each of them, and order a pizza with all their favorite toppings… and when it arrives, pour a little bit of arsenic on top, and then tell them to dig in after they saw you do it. if you get a response of, “No! order a brand new pizza!,” you’ll realize that the republicans were about as generous as they could possibly be to say, “scratch it and start over.”
gahrie: I think my point entirely went over your head. If you believe the healthcare reforms to be unconstitutional, fine. Argue about those. My point, in its entirety, was that coming up with ridiculous cases does not make your case any more persuasive.
What you are attempting to do is say, “Look at how ridiculous it is! If you believe this, you must believe they can do that!”
My response, simply, has been that the ridiculousness of the extreme to which you can take something like this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the root thing is constitutional.
“and a completely different reading of it from the original intention of the founding fathers.”
I must have a different set of founding fathers than you do.
I must have a different set of founding fathers than you do.
Yeah, those Founding Fathers did a lot of writing about the right to healthcare and the right of government to force people to buy things.
i guess the bright side is that one can still forego health insurance… it’s just going to cost you a full paycheck per year for that “privilege”
pthread #33 and gahrie #34 – you have the same Founding Fathers, mostly … you each learned different things from what others have told you about said Founding Fathers, added to which there are likely also to be differences in how much or how little of the writings of said Founding Fathers you have chosen to read for each of yourselves …
And the older you are, the more likely you are to have actually read what they actually wrote … I coudl be wrong, but I suspect that gahrie is older than pthread, for example …
(gahrie – you also forgot to close your ‘sarc – /sarc’ tags … of course, since you didn’t explicitly open ’em, either, you didn’t *have* to close ’em explicitly)
Oh goody, the right wing echo chamber is in full force today. Between gahrie, Alasdair, and the new kid on the block Sully I feel like i’ve wandered into a meeting with Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. All we’re missing is Joe Mama and maybe Andrew. The heck with Phoenix or Salt Lake City, Brendan can just offer to host the next Republican National Convention right here in his comment section.
It’s nice to see somethings haven’t changed..David K is always ready with a personal attack rather than addressing the issue at hand.
Alasdair: I have no idea what Gahrie has read, but I’ve read the Federalist Papers, various works of Thomas Paine, a smattering of Jerrerson’s letters and his justification for the revolution. Unfortunately I missed his version of the bible, but it’s not too late!
Jim Kelly – WOW ! With *that* on your curriculum vitae, you must have been present for the actual August 2nd signing ! (grin)
Or are you outing yourself as having pthread as your (a?) pseudonym ? (grin)
Joe Mama #12 – you just don’t get no respect, do you ? (bigger grin)
Our David K’s accuracy in action … how can one parody that ?
Alasdair: No, it doesn’t mean I was there, but it should place me as at least a 12 year old on your little scale.
Oh, and I outed myself in another thread. 🙂
Hopefully, this will wake up Republicans to the following truth:
Whatever America is, whether we are a center-right, or center-left, or up-down, or reverse-transverse, the one thing we undeniably are is swingers. (Yeah, baby, yeah!). We go both ways, baby. The upshot of this is that, when your party is in power, you need to remake the nation as you wish, cause soon enough the other guys will be in power, and they’ll remake the nation in their way if you don’t first.
Was remembering how the slingers of the BDS meme would often defend Dumbya because he had the right “theories”. Remember that? Bush is a good President, his fans would say, because he had the “right ideas”. What a crock of shit, I said it then, and now it should be crystal clear why “good theories” don’t amount to shit in an executive.
Not that Bush ever got to health care. Not that he was able to take his thumb out of his butt any longer than was required to share his “theory” that, you know, if he had his way, and these things didn’t have to be worked, you know, maybe privatization of social security, or something…all the while the clock was ticking toward the inevitable switcheroo of the swinging American electorate.
In a sense, we conservatives have no one to blame for this odious state of affairs than ourselves. Enamored of popularity contests and substance-free politicians, we have passed on our opportunity to influence policy, and now we are stuck with this distasteful Democratic iteration of universal health care, even though it has been inevitable for nearly a half-century.
Maybe its not too late for us. Let us at least learn from this that its time to put down our Palin pin-up, and move on from the hideous conceit of her suitability as President. Our window in power is always brief. Its time we stopped f***ing up.
gahrie, you consider being likened to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and/or Bill O’Reilly to be insulting?
David K: I know that you consider such a comparison as insulting.
I also know that your post has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion
I absolutely consider it an insult to be compared to those people, I also think you have the same attitudes towards facts, reasonable disagreement, reality, and objectivity that they do. If you don’t like the comparison, well perhaps you should change your behavior. My comment also served as a warning to anyone who was interested in intelligent discussion, between the three of you right wing idealogues swamping the comments in this thread and busily re-inforcing each others warped views, there wasn’t room for intelligent discussion. I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again, I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate maturity, reasonability and an ability to show that you weren’t simply some partisan hack. You failed, and I’m going to call you on it everytime I see the same behavior in you that is so skillfully laid out here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php?ref=recdc
If you don’t like it, stop living up to the low examples set by your parties “leaders”.
David K:
I suggest you take a course in logic and argumentation. Pay particular attention to the section of fallacies.
gahrie – David K is *already* a veritable Einstein of Fallacies !
The sad thing is that he finds TPM and the like to be convincing …
Its been argued, widely, that Obamacare is a boon to the business of Fox News and Right-Wing Radio, as the outraged conservative masses now have a new toy to play with in ginning up their hatred of goddamn liberals. The NPV of Obamacare for Rush Limbaugh is surely quite high.
Of which fact Limbaugh, Ailes, the rest of the MSM right wing must surely be aware. Perhaps this is why they continue to push the turd balloon that a particular candidate is good because s/he has the right ideas, or in Palin’s case, because a bunch of mean old lefties are just trying to take her down, and you should vote her to the Presidency because otherwise those mean old lefties will get their way, and surely you wouldn’t want that!
All the while, those talkers are fully, completely aware – as are all of you – that one such as Sarah Palin surely lacks the intelligence/moxie/sticktoitiveness to see through the slog that is required to remake landmark legislation the way we want. Much like Dubya lacked the same traits. So obviously so, it was laughable.
At the end of the day, the reason I despise Fox News/right wing radio is that, while I find it fun and all to think that Nancy Pelosi is the anti-christ, at the end of the day I really just want to live in a country that is set up along the lines that make sense to me, conservative lines.
Fox News/right wing radio, through the buffoonery they promote, is the enemy of that objective.
I’m not clear why people in this thread think that coming up with increasingly (okay, perhaps decreasingly in this thread) outlandish examples of what the government can make you buy, as if it somehow makes a point. The government could not only force you to pay for, but participate in, a war to take over the entire world. Just because something is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.
But when the gov’t tries to do something that doesn’t fall within any of its enumerated powers under the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. The gov’t clearly has the authority to make you pay for and participate in a war under its enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8: “to raise and support armies,” so that is a non-starter. The issue is whether the gov’t has the authority under one of its enumerated powers to punish you for not buying a good or service that it thinks you should have. Opponents of Obamacare say that the gov’t has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of living in the U.S. Outlandish examples of what the gov’t could make you buy is obviously a slippery slope argument that underscores the point that allowing the gov’t to do that effectively leaves nothing beyond the reach of Congress. That is the point.
Just a quick followup on #48, above – I regret writing that it is fun to hear people making outlandish accusations regarding Pelosi. It is not fun, not at all. This is because Pelosi won, and we lost. Snarking at someone when they win, indeed when they defeat your interest, is not even remotely fun – its pathetic.
But when the gov’t tries to do something that doesn’t fall within any of its enumerated powers under the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional.
Right. Or at least right in the sense that if you believe it to be true then it’s true.
So how does making up ridiculous examples make it any more true? That’s my point. You can make up ridiculous examples about anything that the government can or cannot do. It has no bearing on anything.
There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.
pthread – “There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.” – and that reason is simple – the individual who finds slippery slope arguments to be fallacious is the same individual who has not *experienced* a genuine slippery slope … those of us who have that experience are aware that, the further down a slippery slope one slides, the harder it is to get back up to the top of such a slope, often because slippery slopes tend to become steeper and steeper the further one has slipped down them …
If your only experience with a slippery slope has been cooking oil spilled upon a kitchen floor, then it’s no big deal usually … if your experience has been watching a heavily-loaded
lorrytruck gradually and inexorably slip down a slippery slope into Loch Lomond after getting too near the soft-shoulder edge of a road alongside said loch, you understand that “slippery slope” has meaning, and can indicate significant hazard, and is much safer to avoid …Right. Or at least right in the sense that if you believe it to be true then it’s true.
It’s right regardless of what I believe. What matters is what the Supreme Court believes, and it has said repeatedly and without equivocation that the federal gov’t cannot act outside of its enumerated powers under the Constitution.
So how does making up ridiculous examples make it any more true?
It doesn’t. You’re missing the point. The “ridiculous” examples don’t make something that is indisputably true any more true. Rather, they are meant to show that the reasoning by which the individual mandate would have to be found constitutional under, say, the Commerce Clause — i.e., that a decision not to buy health insurance is an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce — would necessarily make every action or inaction “economic,” thus rendering Congress’ commerce power effectively limitless.
There’s a reason the slippery slope argument is an informal fallacy.
And there’s a reason why the slippery slope argument can be logically valid, and why the slope is slippery.
Driving all the way back up to Joe Mama @12, in your discussion of the distinction between a “tax” and a “fine dressed up as a tax”, in your view, would opponents of Obamacare find comfort in the possibility that the courts would find the mandate actually to be a fine?
Reason for asking is, in the context of the larger discussion about what Congress can or cannot compel citizens to do, Obamacare seems to be relatively unique in compelling citizens to buy something. While citizens are indirectly compelled to buy something like automobile insurance, for example, they are not of course compelled to drive a car.
Of course, citizens are annually compelled to buy things like new roads or scooters for seniors via income/FICA taxes. Compelling citizens to buy something via penalty for noncompliance feels like it might be something new, though I am admittedly out of my legal depth on this topic.
I guess I shouldn’t be shocked that Republicans just learned that the government imposes it’s will on it’s citizens and has done so for well, forever. Seat Belt laws, increased fees for going over the water and electric ration, speed limits, annual car registration renewals, mandated car insurance, smoking bans, taxes on “junk food”, heavy taxes on cigarettes, the Draft!.
If forcing citizens to pick up a gun and fight a war wasn’t (or isn’t) against the law, then damn, you ain’t got a case on health care.
Hmmm … which brings up another source of wonderment for me …
“the government” – I haven’t been able to find out why, in the US, “the government” seems to be this single seemingly-monolithic entity responsible for all sorts of things … and it seems to mostly become more granular for propaganda reasons …
In California, the government in the person of the Governor (currently GOP) is being blamed in the MSM propaganda for the State’s budgetary woes – even though the budgetary woes are solidly the responsibility of the Legislature – the Governor can veto, but cannot get any budget passed by himself – and the Legislature can and does over-ride the Governor’s Veto …
When there’s a crooked government official, up to and including the point where his/her conviction of a crime is being published in the newspaper, the propaganda stands out even more clearly by whether or not the party affiliation/association of the criminal is mentioned anywhere near the person’s name or even in the first few paragraphs …
As Spock is wont to say – “Fascinating” …
What matters is what the Supreme Court believes, and it has said repeatedly and without equivocation that the federal gov’t cannot act outside of its enumerated powers under the Constitution.
We both know the supreme court has previously upheld the constitutionality of social security, and I don’t see social security listed anywhere in the constitution.
would necessarily make every action or inaction “economic,” thus rendering Congress’ commerce power effectively limitless.
Well, if we’re honest with ourselves, in practical terms, it nearly is. That clause is used to justify a lot, for better or worse.
We both know the supreme court has previously upheld the constitutionality of social security, and I don’t see social security listed anywhere in the constitution.
Right, but only because social security was held to be a valid exercise of Congress’ enumerated power under the Taxing and Spending Clause and the GW Clause under Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, respectively. If SCOTUS did not find that social security fell within one of Congress’ enumerated powers, then it would’ve been held unconstitutional.
The Constitution also doesn’t say sh*t about having an air force (for obvious reasons), but no serious person goes around saying that the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional because it isn’t listed anywhere in the Constitution. Why? Because the T&S Clause includes “provid[ing] for the common defence” (I’m pretty sure there is no case law on this point since the argument is just absurd on its face).
Well, if we’re honest with ourselves, in practical terms, it nearly is. That clause is used to justify a lot, for better or worse.
True, but that certainly doesn’t mean Congress shouldn’t be challenged when it seeks to regulate activity outside the scope of its Commerce power, however broadly that power is construed by the courts. And extreme hypotheticals or “outlandish examples” can be useful rhetorical tools in that regard.