Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

"We're not through. Congress ends on Jan. 4," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrap.

 

Reid and Pelosi, as I've noted before, are the best things for conservatism to come on the scene in decades. Liberalism will not even be mentioned in poli-sci classes except as a footnote 50 years from now. 555555555555 The libtards might as well eat their guns now. :content:

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, LK, the two judges who have upheld the constitutionality of requiring health insurance were promoted by Demoncrats. So much for slinging mud at Hudson. Either you were unaware of that, or your ethics prevented you from disclosing the fact. 555555555555555

Sorry gramps, wrong again.

 

Roger Vinson -- ...was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983 to a seat vacated by Lynn C. Higby, was confirmed by the Senate on October 4.

 

What about the 13 who dismissed it as being without merit without it being heard? Overwhelmingly GOPers.

 

Besides, who appointed you does not make or break ethics in this case. Getting money from a lobbying firm who is actively against the thing you are judging and who also works for the prosecutor, however, is (in anyone opinion but your's that is :banghead: ).

 

Hudson is not only unethical for hearing the case, it now appears that he simply chooses to ignore parts of the Constitution. Putting Hudson's background aside, it's the reasoning of his decision itself that continues to be the point of an even larger controversy. The crux of his ruling came down to this main point:

 

[color:purple]If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.[/color]

 

That's a rather bizarre legal analysis. He's basically saying that the N & P clause in the Constitution is meaningless and should be ignored.

 

The argument from the Obama administration is straightforward: the Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce; the American health care system is interstate commerce; and the Affordable Care Act regulates the health care system. As such, the ACA fits comfortably within the confines of the Commerce Clause.

 

What about those who don't want to buy insurance, but would have to under the mandate? Since individuals get sick and receive medical care whether or not they have healthcare coverage (and whether or not they can pay for it), a decision not to buy health insurance has a significant effect on the healthcare market. Therefore, forcing people to buy healthcare coverage is a reasonable provision in a bill meant to regulate the healthcare market.

 

But what's really funny is that this whole thing is a GOP idea, meant to support big biz, proposed by Orrin Hatch and developed by Heritage in 1994 and put into actual use by Romney in MA a few years back. More of those pesky ethics again: if the Dems like it the GOP can't, even if it is their idea.

 

Me, I'd rather have single payer like Medicare and optional additional private insurance if one so wanted. But this is what you GOPers wanted, so here ya go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We're not through. Congress ends on Jan. 4' date='" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrap. [/quote']

 

Reid and Pelosi, as I've noted before, are the best things for conservatism to come on the scene in decades. Liberalism will not even be mentioned in poli-sci classes except as a footnote 50 years from now. 555555555555 The libtards might as well eat their guns now. :content:

 

HH

So you'd rather your employees get off work early and not finish their jobs?

 

Man, can I came work for you? BTW, I'll need 26 weeks of holiday, and 21 weeks of personal days. But full pay, of course. That's OK, right? You're such a nice boss!!

 

While history will be laughing at the GOP and those who followed them in the 2000s, they'll be singing praises of Pelsoi who has been one of the most effective House majority leaders ever. Hence why she makes you piss your pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as an obnoxious prat who pissed off people needlessly. Arrogant and full of herself are the first adjectives that come to mind. Regal and pompous also are up there. She seems to feel you can catch more flies with a sledge hammer than with honey.

 

Anyway, sod this political crap!

 

 

 

gprSualKKAQ&feature=related

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course 13x it has been dismissed as a non-starter and twice ruled constitutional.

 

Twice ruled constitutional. Yep. Both times by Clinton appointees. My understanding is that the 13x cases were dismissed were upon technical/standing issues, rather than upon the issue as to whether or not the Feds can force folks to buy something.

 

Vinson, like you said, was a Reagan appointee. He merely ruled that the cases initiated by TWENTY states could proceed forward.

 

Come on, LK. Do I really expect too much when I ask that you be at least a little bit ethi...oh, never mind. (That word is foreign to libs. Almost forgot.)

 

Miami allegedly has a pretty good law school. Having flunked it's economic courses, you should've tried law. :neener: (Nah...you're doing pretty well with what you're doing now. You'd just be defending parking tickets if you'd studied law.)

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's go back to the merits of Hudson's ruling. He is basically ignoring precedent of the Necessary & Proper clause as defined since at least before the Marshall court's days.

 

The clearest explanation of that that I have read is that [color:purple]"the very idea of the Necessary and Proper Clause is that it permits Congress to do things that are not authorized under its enumerated powers if they are rationally related to doing things that are, so long as they are not prohibited by some other provision in the Constitution. So it is simply fallacious to claim that if the individual mandate is not itself a valid exercise of the commerce power, it cannot be permitted under the Constitution because it is necessary and proper to something else that is.

 

Because Judge Hudson collapses the Necessary and Proper Clause inquiry with the question of whether the individual mandate is itself a valid exercise of the commerce power, he does not even consider its relation to the guaranteed issue requirement of the ACA. That requirement is clearly a valid exercise of the commerce power, and absent some other prohibition in the Constitution, the individual mandate is plainly necessary to its implementation.

 

Instead, Judge Hudson concludes that the individual mandate is prohibited by the Commerce Clause because it is not permitted. In so doing, he reads the Necessary and Proper clause right out of the Constitution."[/color]

 

Isn't that even beyond what you GOPers call "judicial activism" and that you hate so much?

 

In reality, I'm not so opposed to this ruling. For Hudson himself conceded that striking down the individual mandate would not invalidate the whole ACA. If you strike the individual mandate but leave the rest, you have a system that could easily be patched up with a better mechanism to avoid free-riding with a government plan ala Medicare which is what we wanted all along.

 

The real loser here is the health insurance lobby. Health insurers would have preferred to avoid any health care reform at all. But the health insurance lobby's second-highest priority would be a working system with an individual mandate. A world in which they cannot discriminate against sick people but in which healthy people can avoid buying insurance until they're sick is a nightmare for them. Som nam na I say, for they made their bed with their greed.

 

And to you, I say: be careful what you wish for as you may just get it LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LK..."judicial activism" and "federal over-reach" are two concepts which I abhor. Sadly, they seem to be two of the most common tools the left attempts to use to control and achieve it's goals.

 

If the interstate commerce clause is allowed to be used in the matter of Obamacare, it sets a precident for all and anything Congress thinks it has the right to involve itself. Do you really, really want to entrust Congress to do what it pleases? Why the f do you think there was a Revolution over 200 years ago?

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LK..."judicial activism" and "federal over-reach" are two concepts which I abhor. Sadly, they seem to be two of the most common tools the left attempts to use to control and achieve it's goals.

 

If the interstate commerce clause is allowed to be used in the matter of Obamacare, it sets a precident for all and anything Congress thinks it has the right to involve itself. Do you really, really want to entrust Congress to do what it pleases? Why the f do you think there was a Revolution over 200 years ago?

 

HH

 

 

Sounds like HH is, yet again, arguing for the Sudanese government model in the USA again ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We're not through. Congress ends on Jan. 4' date='" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrap. [/quote']

 

Reid and Pelosi, as I've noted before, are the best things for conservatism to come on the scene in decades. Liberalism will not even be mentioned in poli-sci classes except as a footnote 50 years from now. 555555555555 The libtards might as well eat their guns now. :content:

 

HH

So you'd rather your employees get off work early and not finish their jobs?

 

Man, can I came work for you? BTW, I'll need 26 weeks of holiday, and 21 weeks of personal days. But full pay, of course. That's OK, right? You're such a nice boss!!

 

While history will be laughing at the GOP and those who followed them in the 2000s, they'll be singing praises of Pelsoi who has been one of the most effective House majority leaders ever. Hence why she makes you piss your pants.

 

OK, Sudanese government with French holidays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...