So the ruling gives the green light for taxes not delineated in the constitution, what about powers other than taxing? (i.e. Department of Education, administering healthcare, etc...)
granted, these powers need taxation in order to pay for them, but the powers there that need to be justified go beyond just taxation.Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 26.08.2009 @ 13:22
so what exactly was the legal argument in those cases that circumvented the 10th amendment?
that the federal government operating an "insurance" operation qualifies as "regulating commerce amongst the several states"?
did they infer that the founders actually intended to add some "social justice" clause to the constitution and they just forgot to put it in? did they hold that this hypothetical, manufactured, imaginary clause was enough to satisfy the 10th amendment?
did they rule on some legal technicality of that particular case?
Or did they take the route that Sotomayor did in the Ricci case and not even offer an explanation for their ruling?Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 26.08.2009 @ 07:31
last sentance, second paragraph should read:
"these folks immediately..."Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 25.08.2009 @ 16:44
first off, that's an awfully handsome first name you have there!
Second off, wow! I've heard people deride strict literal interpretations of the Bible. I, myself often complain about fellow Christians who insist that the earth was made in exactly six days, that Eve was made from Adam's rib, etc, etc... These folks immediacy rule out the possibility that there could be any metaphor at all in the good book.
But never, never in my life have I ever heard anyone deride someone for a "literal translation" of the U.S. Constitution!! Its a legal document for crying our loud! how the heck else are you supposed to interpret it?!?
I mean, I can see how two people could interpret any given clause in a slightly different way, but the notion that it is somehow ridiculous to take the document "literally" absolutely floors me! I almost fell out of my seat!
Are you seriously saying the Constitution is just full of metaphors and suggestions? wouldn't it be outright lunacy to found a country with such a document as its foundation?
Are there other people who share your beliefs? were you taught this notion somewhere? this seems awfully dangerous to a society which is supposedly ruled by laws.Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 25.08.2009 @ 16:37
does anyone know of a case where any of these institutions that are blatant violations of the 10th amendment (Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc...) have ever been brought before the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional?
If not, why not? Surely we must have have some lawyers out there who believe in the Constitution, and some people with thick wallets to back them.
Every time I bring this up people jump down my throat, those programs help so many people, how could you attack them so harshly?
I agree, there are more than a couple members of my family drawing Social Security and Medicare, I dare say they couldn't get by without them. But that's not really the point. How "good" a program is has exactly zero bearing on whether or not it conflicts with the constitution.
This is why I get so worried when President's start calling for compassionate Supreme Court Justices, who "consider the impact of their rulings"
I'm sorry, but you have to amend the Constitution if you want to do things that conflict with it. Otherwise, we set the precedent that the constitution can just be ignored when it is an inconvenience to the party in power. I fear this precedent has already been set and that this administration and the last one have followed it.Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 25.08.2009 @ 11:10
Let me start out by saying that I a pro-limited government, pro-life, conservative who staunchly opposes this bill.
Then let me say, I am 100% in favor of medicare (and all other forms of insurance) paying for end of life directives. think Terry Schiavo!
The argument that paying doctors to talk to their patients incentives them to euthanasia is total BS. First off, consultations pay doctors much less than hands-on medical procedures.
Second-off, they are paid to consult, not to push death, there is NO logical reason to conclude that a doctor would push his patient to "take one for the team" like a government bureaucrat might.
Finally, if we're talking about financial incentives, isn't there more financial incentive for a doctor to artificially extend a patients life and thereby get paid for all those extra procedures than there is to kill the patient and end that sweet-sweet revenue stream?
Finally, the Democrats are cowards for backing down to such utter BS. By doing so they tacitly admit that living wills ARE a secret government plot to kill old people and take a big step towards ensuring that they will not be covered at any time in the foreseeable future.
If the argument is that the language is to ambiguous, and I still challenge anyone to show me the ambiguous sentence anywhere in section 1233, then all the Dems had to do was add this clause to the end of section 1233:
"the consultations in this section are to be strictly voluntary. Any Health provider or Government official found to be forcing or coercing patients into a consultation will be guilty of a class A felony and will serve a minimum of 20 years in federal prison"
Ambiguity problem solved!Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 14.08.2009 @ 12:16
The Democrats are cowards and foolish cowards at that!
sorry, by "the work" I mean "the word"Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 17:43
the work "shall" appears exactly 12 times in section 1233 of HR 3200. I never contested that.
I just asserted that there is no sentence that says that medicare patients "shall" receive these consultations.Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 17:42
I just have one simple question, and I promise its a respectful good faith question, stemming from the fact that I REALLY want to understand all my fellow conservatives.
In order for the "mandate" issue to be ambiguous, there must be a noun or verb somewhere that could be interpreted as either optional or mandatory.
Sandy Szwarc's example of "shall" is perfect for this! I could see how "you shall do x,y and z" could be interpted either way. Unfortunately, no such "shall" sentence exists anywhere in section 1233.
please just provide us with the statement that some people are interpreting one way and other people are interpreting the other way.Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 15:45
We are the ones who actually introduced the term "end of life counseling"
The bill uses the term "advance care planning consultation"
I just didn't use the bills terminology because I felt is was both vague and lengthy. (like oh so many government terms)Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 09:52