Obama's Fundimental Principle

[bluethread]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

First, is this indeed what the SCOTUS did with today's decision?

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

[dianaiad]

HA is that a joke? If Obama is smarter than both of you, you must be complete and utter fools . . .

This is an erronious quote. I had nothing to do with this quarrel. dianaiad, please be careful with your nesting. Everybody else, this thread has nothing to do with winepusher, slopesholder or even Obama. It is about whether or not the Supreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition and whether such a principle is indeed sound and/or fundimental.

Shall we try again?

Well, if I messed up the nesting, you messed it up in precisely the same way, m'friend. Take a look at the post, and you will see that the top person quoted was "Crunkjuice," just as the top person quoted HERE is, well, you. Even if it's not pretty.

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't uphold what you are claiming it did. It upheld two things: first, that it was unconstitutional for the government to use the commerce clause to justify this legislation, and second, that it COULD, constitutionally, establish a tax and use that money to do whatever they want with it. This decision didn't address whether this was a good idea or not--just that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, and constitutional as a tax.

Which is exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to do: judge on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation or action, not on whether that legislation or action is actually a good idea.

In this case, Justice Roberts was right to do as he did, 'right' in every sense of the word. He behaved exactly as a conservative constitutionalist judge SHOULD behave, and good for him. As conservatives we can't expect justices to refrain from legislating from the bench ONLY if they establish liberal agendas. They need to refrain from legislating from the bench, period.

NOW the entire issue is back where it belongs; in the hands of the voters.

[WinePusher]

I really don't think he is offering his principle as a constitutional one. I would say, as I said elsewhere, he is engaging in a bit of political spin. His intention in promoting the law included supporting this principle. The law is upheld so he is inferring, and I will grant it is not really a logical inference, that SCOTUS is at least indirectly supporting his principle. This does not mean he is claiming it is a constitutional principle.

Fine.

I will point out this happens all the time, and famously as of late, by at least one of the Justices. I think if you read the comments of Justice Scalia in the Arizona Immigration Law case and the dissent in the ACA case under discussion here, you will see very clearly articulated principles that those making the statements consider to be important, yay even fundamental, and evidently relevant to the decision, even if they are not constitutional principles per se.

What? I've read both those opinions, and Scalia makes legal arguments as he always does. The point is that a Judge shouldn't rule on his or her personal convictions, but rather on what the law says. The Westboro Baptist Church case is a good example. 8 out of 9 Justices voted to uphold their speech rights because what they did was within the bounds of the law. They, like any decent people, did not agree with their message but voted in their favor based on the law and not their personal opinions.

One of these might be that taxes should be as low as possible. Now, that is a perfectly legitimate philosophical position to take. It has a long history and has been supported by many an able statesman.

I do not believe it is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, not even indirectly.

Another fundamental principle might be that markets generally operate the best when they are unfettered by regulation, and a related prinicple is that free markets in and of themselves promote the general welfare of the society. Again, both have a long history of adherents in the U.S.

Again, I don't believe either are to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

Right, but I don't see a place where they are forbidden in the Constitution? Before we progress, we should probably set down our definitions. My definition is that if something is not mentioned within the Constitution, the government has no power to do it. Agree?

In addition, it is not really fair to characterize the law as compelling a person to buy anything. You HAVE the option not to buy health insurance. Yes, you do pay more in "taxes" if you don't, but you do have the option.

Last time I checked, there is no upper limit on how much the tax can be increased. What prevents the government from increasing the tax to an extremely high amount? If they did, it would be no different than actually forcing people to buy health insurance.

THis would seem to me to be a conservative principle, one which gives deference to the legislative branch. One which is consistent with the avoidance of judicial activism.

You're repeating a common misconception about judicial activism. Judicial Activism is when rights or laws are created from the bench. Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial activism because the court invented a new right. This decision is itself an example of judicial activism because it invents a new law. Judicial Activism is not when the court defies the legislature, if that were the case then every single instance where the court acts would be considered judicial activism.

I found the following articles interesting in their commentary on why Roberts did what he did. They are admittedly speculative, but I do think it is fair to say that some of the rhetoric and argumentation in the dissent was extreme, at least I can see why even someone as conservative as Roberts would consider it extreme.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... calia.html

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-h ... -his-vote/

Both those articles don't make sense. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions, unlike like the Executive which has the military or the Congress which has the people, making it the weakest branch of government. There is nothing that would prevent the President or the Congress from openly defying the Court. Personally I believe Roberts, being the Chief Justice, decided to vote along with the President on the ACA and SB 1070 in order to ensure the Courts survival and reputation. Obama has already shown his contempt for the Court, openly calling them out at his State of the Union address and in his statement regarding Marbury v. Madison. Had the Court ruled against him he would have launched a campaign against the integrity of the Court and Roberts prevented this. His opinion does not match his questioning in oral arguments, this was a politically calculated move on his part.

[dianaiad]

I really don't think he is offering his principle as a constitutional one. I would say, as I said elsewhere, he is engaging in a bit of political spin. His intention in promoting the law included supporting this principle. The law is upheld so he is inferring, and I will grant it is not really a logical inference, that SCOTUS is at least indirectly supporting his principle. This does not mean he is claiming it is a constitutional principle.

Fine.

I will point out this happens all the time, and famously as of late, by at least one of the Justices. I think if you read the comments of Justice Scalia in the Arizona Immigration Law case and the dissent in the ACA case under discussion here, you will see very clearly articulated principles that those making the statements consider to be important, yay even fundamental, and evidently relevant to the decision, even if they are not constitutional principles per se.

What? I've read both those opinions, and Scalia makes legal arguments as he always does. The point is that a Judge shouldn't rule on his or her personal convictions, but rather on what the law says. The Westboro Baptist Church case is a good example. 8 out of 9 Justices voted to uphold their speech rights because what they did was within the bounds of the law. They, like any decent people, did not agree with their message but voted in their favor based on the law and not their personal opinions.

One of these might be that taxes should be as low as possible. Now, that is a perfectly legitimate philosophical position to take. It has a long history and has been supported by many an able statesman.

I do not believe it is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, not even indirectly.

Another fundamental principle might be that markets generally operate the best when they are unfettered by regulation, and a related prinicple is that free markets in and of themselves promote the general welfare of the society. Again, both have a long history of adherents in the U.S.

Again, I don't believe either are to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

Right, but I don't see a place where they are forbidden in the Constitution? Before we progress, we should probably set down our definitions. My definition is that if something is not mentioned within the Constitution, the government has no power to do it. Agree?

I'd say, if I were going to get really simplistic, that this might be the major difference between truly conservative and truly liberal/progressivists: The conservatives think that the government has no right to do anything not expressly mentioned in the constitution, and the liberals think that the government has the right to do anything it wants--unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Now me, I lean toward the conservative view. In fact, I lean very heavily toward the conservative view. However, I'm also willing to admit that we, in this day and age, are dealing with a few things for which the Framers of the Constitution had no conception. The problem lies in figuring out what to do with THOSE.

In addition, it is not really fair to characterize the law as compelling a person to buy anything. You HAVE the option not to buy health insurance. Yes, you do pay more in "taxes" if you don't, but you do have the option.

Last time I checked, there is no upper limit on how much the tax can be increased. What prevents the government from increasing the tax to an extremely high amount? If they did, it would be no different than actually forcing people to buy health insurance.

Have you checked the history of the income tax rates? Care to take a peek at what they were in, say, 1960?

<snip to end>

[WinePusher]

Right, but I don't see a place where they are forbidden in the Constitution? Before we progress, we should probably set down our definitions. My definition is that if something is not mentioned within the Constitution, the government has no power to do it. Agree?

I'd say, if I were going to get really simplistic, that this might be the major difference between truly conservative and truly liberal/progressivists: The conservatives think that the government has no right to do anything not expressly mentioned in the constitution, and the liberals think that the government has the right to do anything it wants--unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Now me, I lean toward the conservative view. In fact, I lean very heavily toward the conservative view. However, I'm also willing to admit that we, in this day and age, are dealing with a few things for which the Framers of the Constitution had no conception. The problem lies in figuring out what to do with THOSE.

Fine, although I would say that you aptly described what a libertarian is, not what a conservative is. And what new things are you talking about? Automatic guns? Things like that?

Last time I checked, there is no upper limit on how much the tax can be increased. What prevents the government from increasing the tax to an extremely high amount? If they did, it would be no different than actually forcing people to buy health insurance.

Have you checked the history of the income tax rates? Care to take a peek at what they were in, say, 1960?

Income taxes have obviously declined. What's your point?

[dianaiad]

Right, but I don't see a place where they are forbidden in the Constitution? Before we progress, we should probably set down our definitions. My definition is that if something is not mentioned within the Constitution, the government has no power to do it. Agree?

I'd say, if I were going to get really simplistic, that this might be the major difference between truly conservative and truly liberal/progressivists: The conservatives think that the government has no right to do anything not expressly mentioned in the constitution, and the liberals think that the government has the right to do anything it wants--unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Now me, I lean toward the conservative view. In fact, I lean very heavily toward the conservative view. However, I'm also willing to admit that we, in this day and age, are dealing with a few things for which the Framers of the Constitution had no conception. The problem lies in figuring out what to do with THOSE.

Fine, although I would say that you aptly described what a libertarian is, not what a conservative is. And what new things are you talking about? Automatic guns? Things like that?

Nah. weapons are weapons. Additional efficiency doesn't really alter their basic nature.

However, I would imagine that things like--who claims Mars might not have entered into their minds, nor the problems inherent in managing interstate and international flight paths and air space...and who KNEW that we would ever, actually, be able to turn Niagara Falls OFF?

and, to really butcher a beloved quote "nobody expected the internet."

I"m old enough to remember living without...and not missing one whit because I had no notion that such things were possible outside of the wildest Sci Fi--cell phones and texting, (shoot, the Framers didn't even have to deal with rail roads and telegraphs, for crying outloud, never mind time zones!).

This sort of scientific advancement really DOES mess up the culture in ways that the Framers could not possibly be expected to have foreseen. When culture changes, so do values. What DOES the constitution say about same sex marriage, and how it affects religions that really do not accept it?

Messy.

Last time I checked, there is no upper limit on how much the tax can be increased. What prevents the government from increasing the tax to an extremely high amount? If they did, it would be no different than actually forcing people to buy health insurance.

Have you checked the history of the income tax rates? Care to take a peek at what they were in, say, 1960?

Income taxes have obviously declined. What's your point?[/quote]

that was my point...and that SCOTUS acceding to the WH argument that the mandate was a tax is not a huge precedent. That it denied the mandate as part of the commerce clause IS.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

Nah. weapons are weapons. Additional efficiency doesn't really alter their basic nature.

As a life-long gun owner and a proud card-carrying member of the NRA, I believe you should carefully qualify that by saying "Personal weapons." Even the evil NRA does not defend the individual possession of such things as intercontinental nuclear missiles, or even operational tanks and artillery.

[bluethread]

Don't be silly. Under Obamacare no 90 year old will be allowed such a transplant, whether or not he could pay for it him/herself.

Why couldn't he have it, if he could afford it?

Because once Obamacare is fully implemented, the committees won't allow it. Even if he COULD pay for it.

I was speaking philosophically, but I expected that response. I am glad that you acknowledge that is the case under the ACA. Thanks for the info on the british system being optional. So, the ACA, and thus the SCOTUS ruling on it, does not include the principle that a medical condition should not endanger a families financial status? Even if that is so, is that still a "fundimental principle" that we should be striving for, or is it merely idealistic hyperbolie?

[bluethread]

error

[cnorman18]

As Cnorman once said to someone, and apparently within the rules, do not ever find yourself in physical proximity to me, unless you are also built like a football player.

Just noticed this.

When, where and in relation to what issue did I say this?

[CrunkJuice]

He's smarter than you and me combined and I'm smarter than you. These are demonstrable facts.

HA is that a joke? If Obama is smarter than both of you, you must be complete and utter fools

Uncivil per forum rules, but you're imitating winepusher.

You misspelled that.

Oh man we got a grammar nazi up in the house. Get all the Jews out of here

Anti-semetic and offensive per forum rules.

How so? I think he's da man.

Im sorry you feel that way in your clouded foolish mind

Uncivil per forum rules, but you're imitating winepusher.

Pure racism, as I suspected.
If you think Obama is a dummy and lacks intellect, there is no saving you. You can disagree with him and his vision and priorities, but to call him dumb exposes you as an unserious hateful, and emotional person. You lost big today. Suck it up.

HAHAHA racism card? typical liberal spewing out bullshit instead of using actual points. I call him dumb for his idiotic Keynesian Economics and completely flawed healthcare bill. Also the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for using drone strikes and attacking Libya. The list goes on and on.

Bullshit is uncivil per forum rules.
Personal attacks and profanity are, or were, against forum rules. I'm not sure anymore asshole, as you and winepusher get away with it because of now undeniable double standard around here. Anyway, until I get clarity, go fuck yourself. I'll retract and simply consign you to hell if I'm wrong and what passes for reason returns to this forum.

Typical liberal....once again avoided everything presented