Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Wesleyan University. Justice Scalia, as most people know, is pretty darned conservative in his interpretation of the Constitution. Wesleyan, for those who don't know, is an Ivy League-caliber school, possibly the most liberal place on Earth, and a place where the liberals like to protest. Kudos to Scalia for agreeing to go into this hornet's nest of intolerance and monolithic thinking.

I was there. It was an interesting experience in seeing what liberal, priviledged kids due with their "tolerance"..

Protesters everywhere, which is innocent enough. One kid had a sign that said "end the war, tax the rich". I bet this kid got 1600 on his SAT's, but I guess he never took Poli-Sci 101, or he'd know that the judicial branch controls neither the military nor writes the tax code.

There were kids chanting that the GOP (of which Scalia holds no position) favors the rich. I wonder if these kids know that (1) Obama wants to increase the tax credits to people who buy the Volt to $10,000, and that (2) the average salary of Volt owners is $175,000. Those folks need a handout from Obama? How is that helping the poor and downtrodden?

Inside the lecture hall, a bunch of students were wearing orange jumpsuits with black hoods over their heads. Not sure what their point was.

During Scalia's lecture, a bunch of kids in the balcony threw condoms down towards the stage. Nice.

These are the intellectual elite of liberalism. Is civil discourse really too much to ask? What are these kids going to do when they get jobs and have issues with bosses and co-workers, throw condoms at them?

These are the same people who are criticizing Rush Limbaugh for using derogatory terms to describe a feminist activist. And they see no irony or hypocrisy.

A mental disorder.

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

And I'll add that I don't agree w/anyone disrupting anyone's speach. They should protest outside.

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

First, throwing condoms at someone is not protesting, that's called making an ass out of yourself, because you are admitting you cannot debate the person you disagree with, so you throw htings.

Second, I'm not comparing what these kids did to what Rush did (although I could very well). Read my comment, OK? I'm saying that these same liberals are criticizing Rush for being uncivilized, and then throwing condoms at a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

Anyone who thinks it's OK to throw condoms at someone they disagree with, has no right to criticize Rush. If he has no right to act that way, neither do they. In other words, these same kids were saying last week "how dare Rush use that language, doesn't he know how inappropriate that is. Now, where are the condoms to throw at Scalia, that'll settle his hash".

Try making that wrong.

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

The kids at Wesleyan approved of throwing condoms. And I'm willing to bet those same kids think Rush was boorish.

" throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals. "

maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

If Justice Ginsburg gave an anti-war talk at West Point, none of the cadets would throw things at her, and if anyone did, they'd get expelled.

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

Throwing condoms? Really? It's a bunch of college students and you want to equate throwing condoms with Rush's repugnant and vile comments? The same comments that have caused him to grovel on air (never seen before) and lose 25 sponsors?

Really?

Back at Iowa State the Young Republicans Club used to protest GLBTA events by bringing live sheep and holding signs that read "Adam and Steve" and "Exit Only".

They published a spoof newspaper and on the cover was a guy screwing a giant stuffed animal to demonstrate "proper technique" learned at the event. I have a copy if you want to see it :devil2: :hihi:

I even went to a party of theirs once and spoke with one of the most vocal. He was proud of his tight black gloves because he thought it made him look like a Nazi.

So I'd have to say your entire argument is complete bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

-spence

Maybe they were trying to upstage Fluke's ploy by making a statement they wanted free condoms for men's health in Obamacare too.

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge. :doh:

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam:uhuh:

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell" :rotf2:

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam:uhuh:

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell" :rotf2:
Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify. There's outrage so they hold another and invite a few token women with no real discussion.

So to get visibility on a very reasonable issue, the Dems invite a young woman to speak about how some women do need medically prescribed conception for valid health issues.

And in response, arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women.

Republican's, terrified of Rush's wrath are frozen and offer only token responses. In what should be a leadership moment, none of them lead. George Will nails it "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

And all you do it tighten the tin foil.

-spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

Spence, maybe you're right, maybe Scalia does love this stuff. I know I do, because it exposes liberals for the intolerant, hateful anarchists that so many are. your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

"Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her"

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

Is civil discouse simply beyond the ability of liberals? By throwing condoms, these kids are saying "I don't agree with Scalia, but I cannot explain why, I can't engage him in debate, all i can do is throw condoms".

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify.

-spence

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. The Republican-sponsored hearings were not about women's health, they were about religious freedom and the first amendment. Ms Fluke has no expertise in these matters.

How weak is your position to start with, if you need to lie about the fundamental nature of the issue? you're being dishonest right off the bat.

"arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women"

He is defaming women of financial means, who somehow insist that they can't afford their own condoms.

"And all you do it tighten the tin foil."

If defending the first amendment is tightening the tin foil, I proudly plead guilty. The Bill of Rights applies to all of us Spence, even Catholics. If enough people want to change the Constitution so that condoms supercede the freedom of religion, there are mechanisms to amend the constitution thiusly. Until then, not even Obama has the authority to decide who has religious freedom and who doesn't.

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself:uhuh:

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.
It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.

Your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.
Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.
I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.
It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.
No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$ :hihi:

-spence

Fluke attended a Jesuit University knowing full well beforehand what the policies were, she's spent her time there undermining those policies...this was an attempt, though a rogue assist from the Federal Government to further those goals.

Spence, the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American. You seem to struggle with the limits placed on government and the guarantees , in this case, religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no guarantee of free contraception or gender reassignment anywhere in the Constitution, Ms. Fluke could easily attend another University with acceptable policies to her, noone forced her to attend this school, she's chosen to spend her time while at this school undermining the University's policies and it's Constitutional protections on this issue as well as many others just as so many that you support spend their time undermining our Constitution and Constitutional protections. Obamacare is the example in this case, the government now feels inclined to order private institutions and companies to provide things for free, particularly things that they feel they can get a lot of mileage out of politically. If the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American and you spend all of your time undermining it and supporting the undermining of it....what does that make you?:confused:

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself:uhuh:
If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.


Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?


I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.


It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?


No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$ :hihi:

-spence

"Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after"

OK. Using your logic, Ms Fluke is a self-described women's reproductive rights activist, so why didn't she know what she was getting into. She got into Georgetown Law, so she's obviously very bright. Why do you assume she was innocent, naive little waif? because it makes my side look bad, that's why...

"To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly."

Please show me proof of consrvetive college students throwing condoms at an invited liberal guest. The left has an ALMOST (not quite) monopoly on this type of behavior Spence. You almost never hear of right-wing riots. Anarchy is the method of liberals, not conservatives.

"It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?"

Not if those laws prohibit the church from pursuing their beliefs. Have you even read the first amendment? Do you ever get one right, even by accident? Read this please, from the first amendment...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

The church isn't interfering with women's health. The church isn't telling these women that they cannot use condoms, the church is just saying that the church doesn't want to provide them. A small number of women need birth control pills for true medical needs (my wife is one of them). In the vast majority of cases, contraception is a tool to engage in casual sex, and thus not anything remotely resembling "medicine".

Spence, if I buy a gun, it's in everyone's interest for me to attend a gun safety class. But I can't force my employer to pay for it. If I choose to get involved with guns, that's my choice, and thus my responsibiolity to ensure I do it safely. I have no right to ask anyone else to pay for it. Similarly, if I want to get involved in casual sex, by what right to I take your money out of your pocket to buy my condoms with? Putting aside women who have legitimate medical needs, which is a very small minority.

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

Again, you're way off base.

The constitution says the feds cannot approve or disapoprove of a soecific religious view. I have posted that.

Spence, please show us where the constitution says that citizens have the right to have contraception provided to them at their place of wmployment.

"her freedoms."

Spence, who are all these women who cannot get contraception, unless it's provided by their employer? Furthermore, these women, fortunately, have the "freedom" to work anywhere they want. If they want free condoms at work, they can work at Planned Parenthood or, thanks to liberals, in any public elementary school.

You make it sound like condoms are only available at work. Do these women all live in th wilds of Alaska? Are there no pharmacies or gas stations, or clinics, where they live?

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?
You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.
Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

-spence

I thought Rush was just an entertainer....geez

I though Rush was just an entertainer....geez
He is but also has tremendous influence. Imagine a field of Republican candidates who can't even stand up to an entertainer or lightweight like Sarah Palin.

The argument over contraception is a real issue being discussed right now. What Rush says does unfortunately matter and shapes a lot of public opinion. That he chooses to do so in such an ugly manner is unfortunate.

What Maher said months or years ago while disrespectful is largely irrelevant in the present context.

-spence

He is but also has tremendous influence. Imagine a field of Republican candidates who can't even stand up to an entertainer or lightweight like Sarah Palin.

The argument over contraception is a real issue being discussed right now. What Rush says does unfortunately matter and shapes a lot of public opinion. That he chooses to do so in such an ugly manner is unfortunate.

What Maher said months or years ago while disrespectful is largely irrelevant in the present context.

-spence

that sounds about right coming from you...:uhuh:

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again
I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

wow

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.


Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

"Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence."

Spence, I'm going to focus on this one absurdity.

You're saying that Rush's use of the word slut, is worse than Maher's use of the word c*nt, because Rush has a wider audience?

Spence, do you listen to what comes out of your mouth? What you're saying is, freedom of speech is inversely proportional to the size of the audience? What's the logic behind that? Exactly how big does one's audience have to be, before he is obligated to be a gentleman? 1 million? 2 million?

"Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money. "

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but it's curious that's NOT what the white house is saying. I heard Jay Carney say that they weren't asking the superPac to give the money back, not that they were prohibited by law from telling the PAC to give the money back.

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

"legally protected access to contraception"

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

Spence, I'm going to focus on this one absurdity.

You're saying that Rush's use of the word slut, is worse than Maher's use of the word c*nt, because Rush has a wider audience?

Spence, do you listen to what comes out of your mouth? What you're saying is, freedom of speech is inversely proportional to the size of the audience? What's the logic behind that? Exactly how big does one's audience have to be, before he is obligated to be a gentleman? 1 million? 2 million?
How can someone with a love of mathematics lack a basic ability to understand a simple formula?

Maher made a rude quip about someone who was making a career out of being in the spotlight mostly through destructive means. It was heard by relatively few people, and Maher isn't seen as a leader of the Left.

Limbaugh ridicules a woman who's gained a small amount of visibility through constructive means, ridicules her for hours about her sexuality, much of which was made up. He has millions of people listening and is seen as a leader of the Right.

There is no parity here.


I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but it's curious that's NOT what the white house is saying. I heard Jay Carney say that they weren't asking the superPac to give the money back, not that they were prohibited by law from telling the PAC to give the money back.
Obama can't legally tell them to return the money. The most he could do is make a public statement and hope they listen.

But even that isn't called for in this situation. It would set a precedent impossible to uphold.

Did you see how hard Mitt Romney was working to stand beside Ted Nugent the other week? Would you like me to post some of the things he's said???

-spence

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.
I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?
Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

creating a "legal mandate" forcing private insurers(companies) to provide a product, for free, with no co-pay and effectively forcing institutions(who may be self-insurers and may be Catholic or otherwise) who pay for or sponsor the service(insurance) to provide something which may contradict their religious or moral teaching and belief is a usurpation of the Constitution....and it's just the beginning



yes Spence...the insurers are targets

“The private market is in a death spiral,” Sebelius said

Later on Tuesday, in an address to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, Sebelius discussed the “broken” health insurance system that Obamacare aims to fix.

Sebelius said that the next “important step” in implementing the president's health care plan is to establish “essential health benefits”--the basic package of coverage that the federal government will order all health insurance plans to cover.

The Affordable Care Act outlines 10 areas of basic coverage, including preventive services, prescription drugs, pediatric care and hospital services. The "preventive services" area is the one under which the administration has already ordered that all health insurance plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions, without charging any fees or co-pay to insured workers and their dependents.

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

and ...that...means????

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay..

It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers.

Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.
-spence

oh brother:confused:

you forgot the part about Obamacare mandating insurance coverage....one thing leads to another...very conveniently I suppose

you may also want to remember that the contraception mandate was not part of the original law that was dubiously passed...what was passed gave power to Sebilius to defiine at a later date what constituted and could be mandated for certain care, the possibilities may be endless....I guess if you don't mind laws like these being passed giving people like Sebilius(or perhaps someone who you disagree with) a very wide berth to determine and mandate what does and does not constitute certain care free or otherwise....or anything else....the pendulum swings both ways

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;926156]
"maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always."

Didn't you see my post saying I didn't approve of the behavior? And I didn't see any conserv. chastising the behavior of calling woman sluts and prostitutes (sure there was some half hearted comments after the uproar - but conserv. constantly insult people they don't like. You yourself call woman vile names on this site.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

"So if I pull up a picture of a leader of the teabaggers with a racist sign that doesn't that discredit this comment?"

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

And Jim, I'm sorry there is a whole lost of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes "your side" look classless and uncivilized. That is not my fault. PS - I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

"Wasn't that what they refered what they refered themselves to? Frankly I'm just responding to your posts."

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge. :doh:

And insulting our President by lying about his religion and where he was born- Nice respect towards our President.:doh:

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$ :hihi:



:biglaugh:

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable.

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."


I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.
it's not at all a separate topic...we wouldn't be having this discussion if the democrats hadn't rammed constitutionally questionable legislation through congress which gave a political appointee the broad power to arbitrarily create mandates ....and "rights" apparently....a number of democrats would not have supported the legislation if this were spelled out at the time the legislation was passed and I'm pretty sure that some of them have said that they would not have been on board if they knew that this was going to result...this is insane Spence and you continue to not only support it but make excuses for it....... your poll doesn't mean squat

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. no, it is whether the federal government can force a religious institution to conform to an arbitrary and questionable federal mandate which violates their religious principles and was created as a result of a questionable federal law, have you forgotten the dubious way in which the law was actually passed??? you are on very weak ground when you refer to it as "Federal Law" There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable. there's a big difference between what the states can mandate and the Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, another thing that you seem to not understand

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

this is really basic stuff Spence..but somehow, like our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief, you spend all of your time and supposed knowledge undermining the Constitution...

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types on most issues and many on the right, you'll likely note that much of what is being debated in this current election was addressed quite thoroughly by Reagan...you should spend some time :uhuh:

here's one that is currently applicable..his radio addresses were brilliant..1961

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.


funny how history repeats itself

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA:uhuh:

Pennsylvania Legislature swears in new members; GOP has majority
Tuesday, January 04, 2011,
By The Associated Press The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania General Assembly began its new legislative session today by swearing in new and returning members and electing Republican veterans to lead each chamber.

Twenty-one freshmen Republicans and eight new Democrats were sworn in to the House, and Jefferson County Republican Sam Smith was elected speaker. The Senate swore in 25 members, including three Democratic freshmen, and elected Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to a third term as president pro tempore.

Neither Smith nor Scarnati was opposed.

Smith urged members to live up to the responsibilities of their office, and gave the freshman class particular advice. "Don't read your own news releases, keep your feet on the ground and be mindful of why you wanted to be here and why the voters elected you," Smith said.

With both the House and Senate in GOP hands, and Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett preparing to be inaugurated Jan. 18, the Capitol is poised to take a rightward turn from the divided government of recent years. State government's massive deficit will be their first challenge.

House Republicans regained the majority in the November election after two terms in the minority; their margin is 112-91. The Senate has been firmly in GOP hands for many years, and its majority is currently 30-20. Each house also has a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic lawmaker.

I also count 1 Republican Senator and 1 Democrat Senator as well as 12 Republican Congresspeople and 7 Democrat Congresspeople

which Pennsylvania were you referring to ????

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.
:uhuh:

I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

" never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

First of all, you said this on this thread...

"Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception"

That's your quote. If you concede that there is NO LAW WHATSOEVER that requires employers to offer contraception, then why are we having this conversation? If there is no such law, from where does Obama get the authority to order an employer (Catholic Church) to offer contraceptives to its employees?

Spence, it seems like you're all over the place here...

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

"you might question the effectiveness of such teaching"

No, you and your liberal ilk should question the effectiveness of contraception. When libs demanded that contraception be made universally available diring the sexual revolution, they said that contraceptives would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. Turns out, your side could not have been more wrong (as usual), as the numbers of those things have skyrocketed now that we have transformed sex into a casual thing.

Not a great cultural leap forward in my book.

And refraining from the use of contraceptives is not a "binding belief" of the catechism. Some beliefs are "binding" - meaning, you are not allowed to disoute that Jesus is the son of God. Other beliefs (like saying the rosary, refraining from contraceptives) are non-binding.

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

Where to begin?

You're saying today's Democrats aren't more liberal than a generation ago? Condoms in elementary schools? Partial birth abortions? Willfully ignoring immigration laws? Giving public labor unions a blank check? Pretending that we're not at war with Islamic terrorists?

"Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's"

Yeah, Newt was a real nut. He (along with Bill Clinton, who I assume you also consider a right-wing nut) balanced the budget, cut spending, cut taxes, and got millions of welfare recipients back to work. God knows, none of those ideas has any usefulness today, right, Zimmy?

Our country is more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War, and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. Any group that thinks murderers have more of a right to live than unborn babies, who think that affirmative action isn't clearly unconstitutional, who is afraid to admit that there's any such thing as Islamic terrorists, who thinks it's OK to ignore immigration laws, and who thinks it's OK for states to go bankrupt to enrich public labor unions, is kooky in my opinion.

My side stands for individual freedom, compassion for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, supporting the free market. I can see how Zimmy sees these ideas as radical.

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)




I'd love to see Spence try to respond to this in a rational way.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?
There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.
The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....predictable:uhuh: you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the statist bunch that curently inhabits Washington...your arguments indicate that you don't think the government is limited by the Constitution as long as it in regard to things that you approve of:)

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265461876605408.html?m od=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle)

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....very weak...and predictable:uhuh: you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the bunch that curently inhabits Washington

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265461876605408.html?m od=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle)
I think the crux of the argument is ensuring people get a base level of care in their insurance.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

"There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche."

Spence, you keep spinning in circles here, so let's make it simply clear.

Is there, or is there not, a law which compels employers to offer free contraception to employees?

"The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything"

They weren't? Spence, here you go making it up as you go along. That's what started all of this, Obama wanted the church to pay for contraception.

"the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy."

That math may be simple, but it's also tragically flawed. First, if you assume that every single woman denied contraception has an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe it's cheaper to give her contraception. And maybe not, because are you sure an abortion costs more than a "few hundred dollars"?

Second, that analysis assumes that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. If that were true (and that's demonstrably false), why have there been so many more kids born out of wedlock AFTER contraception was made widely available?

Third, Catholics aren't concerned about dollars, we are concerned with that pesky First Amendment. you know, the one that liberals hold up to support the right of pornographers? Freedom of religion happens to be in there too.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty.

Liberty is freedom from coercion. This includes freedom from coercive association. ALL parties in an association must be free from coercion, the employer as well as the employee in this case. You seem to feel that it is only the employee's freedom which must be protected. The Federal Government (unconstitutionally) mandated (through unelected bureaucrats of the NLRB) that employers must bargain collectively with unions under some guise of free association (free for employees, but not for employers who MUST associate with the collective group and cannot collude, associate, with other employers as a collective group). Though Ms. Fluke is not a member of a union, she is free to bargain for certain benefits, and the Church is free to agree or not--that is, in the world that the Constitution envisions. Of course, in the progressive world of our Administrative State, it is not up to either Ms. Fluke, nor up to the Church to bargain for or against something that a particular unelected administrator wishes to impose--for whatever reason that administrator wishes to conjure up. Nor does the administrator of this new regulatory agency need to feel any compunction to follow a pattern regulated by another regulatory agency (bargaining). As we keep "progressing" down this road toward complete Central planning and regulation, we can more blatantly dictate.

It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein:uhuh:

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors:)

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA:uhuh:



There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes :) I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2.

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types

Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes :) I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2


Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

Republican Governor
Republican controlled state senate
Republican controlled state house of reps
1:1 Senators
12:7 Republican Conresspeople

apparently they aren't voting for democrats very much:uhuh:

what is your definition of "barely competitive"?

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?

never mind..I get it...:uhuh:

Even if your point is 100% true, it is pretty much irrelevant.

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?



By taking my statement that the Republicans I knew growing up have switched or are independent and spinning it to "Yup, there are barely any Republicans left in PA." I know some in these forums like to pretend this is a jury'd professional journal and get antsy if the information isn't sited in APA format, so here at least is a link.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/04_political_demographics_frey_teixeira/04_political_demographics_frey_teixeira.pdf

"Political shifts in Pennsylvania since 1988 have seen the growing eastern part of the state swing toward the Democrats, producing four [actually, 5 and looking like 6] straight presidential victories for that party. "

Sort of supports what I said in my post, though not necessarily your "interpretation" of what I said.

Sort of supports what I said in my post, though not necessarily your "interpretation" of what I said.???
not really...but this is fun...like a conversation with my 8 year olds:rotf2:

Noun 1. general election - a national or state election; candidates are chosen in all constituencies

Wiki (ZIMMY)Answers

What is a general election?

In: Politics and Government, Elections, Political Parties

A general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are up for election.

General election is also a term used in opposition to primary election. In the United States, primary elections serve to narrow down a field of candidates, and general elections actually elect candidates to offices. The general election is usually held on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years.
It meets the above definition of "general election" in that the entire United States House of Representatives is elected on Election Day, though not the entire United States Congress. Prior to the 17th Amendment, members of the United States Senate were not directly elected by the people but rather by their state legislature. Though Senators have been directly elected since then, only one-third of them are up for election on any given Election Day. The U.S. President is also chosen during a November general election that follows primaries.


Originally Posted by zimmy
There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2. doesn't show based on the Pa election outcomes....see above

Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. Originally Posted by zimmy



show me where Pa(Republicans) is/are "barely competitive " in the general election which is what I had issue with and why I put it in bold and pointed out(pretty clearly) the error in that statement...

???
not really...but this is fun...like a conversation with my 8 year olds:rotf2:



That is about your level of discourse :jump1: I guess you are trying to tell me you thought I was talking about state elections when I said "the general"? Ron White might have an appropriate quote for you...:uhuh:

That is about your level of discourse :jump1: I guess you are trying to tell me you thought I was talking about state elections when I said "the general"? Ron White might have an appropriate quote for you...:uhuh:

it's just honest...and accurate

state reps/senators/ governor, congress/ senate and pres...you got pres....and forgot the rest and it's hardly representative of your claim

btw Pa is in "toss up" at the moment and that's with a generic republican which doesn't really resemble "barely competitive"

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)

between...

Reagan being too liberal for the modern Republican party

the economy cranking up for an easy Obama win ( as his approval ratings plummet to 41%) you should also check out the most recent NBC/WSJ poll and scroll to ECONOMY and see what Americans have to say about their vews of the economy(not good for Obama)

and the Republican party in Pa being abandoned in droves since your youth leaving the state in control of the Democrats


you're not making a lot of sense..but I love ya and if it makes you happy...that's cool

I don't know who Ron White is...

but "level of discourse"???

"There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff
change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes
I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd
His words may jive with the flea party"

if you are going to dish...please don't whine...it's unseemly

[QUOTE=scottw;926385]

Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

Tefra...a Reagan policy?
TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue through closure of tax loopholes and introduction of tougher enforcement of tax rules, as opposed to changing marginal income tax rates.
Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes. One week after TEFRA was signed, H.R. 6863 - the Supplemental Appropriations Act(SPENDING) of 1982 which Ronald Reagan claimed would "bust the budget" was passed by both houses of Congress over his veto.


amnesty...a Reagan policy? a compromise he later regretted, he supported sanctions on employers who employed illegals which were called "draconian".... and supported Simpson saying " I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and his bill will do this.”


Payroll taxes....I think we've learned that it's a mistake to compromise with dems(and many repubs) with regard to tax increases, particularly when they accompany promised spending reductions that never seem to materialize:uhuh:

hey Zim..is this the kind of Pennsylvania Republican that you yearn for? :)

Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform
By Alexander Bolton - 03/12/12

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.

Specter laments that Obama and Vice President Biden did not do more to help him in the final days of his primary race against former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who beat him 54 percent to 46 percent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary.

Specter writes that Obama turned down a request to campaign with him in the final days of the primary, because the president’s advisers feared he would look weak if he intervened and Specter lost.

Specter was also disappointed that Biden, who was only a few blocks away at Penn University, did not attend a pre-primary day rally at the Phillies’s Citizens Bank Park — a missed opportunity Specter attributes to a failed staff-to-staff request.

Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it.

Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list.

Specter found out about it after his press secretary emailed him a press account of the switch. Specter was floored that Reid had “violated a fundamental Senate practice to give personal notice to a senator directly affected by the substance of a unanimous consent agreement.”

conversely...:)

“When I told him I was going to change parties, he(Mitch McConnell) was visibly displeased but not ruffled. Mostly, he was taciturn,” Specter recounts. “McConnell and I had a serious discussion. He was very nice and very professional. ‘Don’t do it,’ he said. ‘It’d be a big mistake. Serve out your time as a Republican and retire gracefully.’”








Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law)

btw Pa is in "toss up" at the moment and that's with a generic republican which doesn't really resemble "barely competitive"

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)



I do like these maps, as it usually comes down to a state or two...

FL, and likely NC, will not be toss-ups come from November. I predict that PA, OH, VA decide 2012.

I love it when liberals use insulting language, then act all offended when we reply similarly...

Spence, still waiting for you to tell me about the skyrocketing energy costa that Obama inherited, given that gas was under 2 bucks when he got sworn in???

oops...didn't see this coming....right???

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs

byPhilip Klein Senior

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.
The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over. Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.

-spence

[QUOTE=zimmy;926715]

Tefra...a Reagan policy?
TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue


Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes


amnesty...a Reagan policy? a compromise he later regretted


Payroll taxes....I think we've learned that it's a mistake to compromise

Glad to see you at least agree that his policies are too liberal for the tea party.

The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over.

A formal, textual reading of the law is the only way it can be applied consistently and uniformly. A law that can be "interpreted" in two ways (or more) is not a law but an opinion. A law that can "mean" whatever you want or is expedient for the moment, or the whims of rulers, is a meaningless conglomeration of words which create a legal patina for tyranny.

And there is no "do-over" in textual understanding either of legislation or the Constitution. For the latter, it is an adherence or return to it's principles. You misunderstand this in the same way you misunderstand, as you have often put it, "there are no mulligans." In golf, from whence the expression came, it is, as you say, a "do-over" to replace an errant shot. But in proper golf, again, as you say, "there are no mulligans." You count the bad stroke, but you don't, if you're competent, keep doing the same thing. You correct the flaw in your swing that caused the errant shot--usually by going back to basics. Likewise, having strayed from Constitutional governance to errant tyranny, you don't continue the mistake, but you return to basics--the Constitution.

Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

Not as possibly as our unlimited Federal Government has led itself into its own bloated, dictatorial state, which, in turn, has also led to bloated yet starving States who mimic it and depend with subservience on its leadership and mandates.

The nearly 150 years of Constitutional adherence before we were transformed into the Progressive administrative State, shows no evidence that a limited Federal Gvt. would lead to bloated, inefficient States. Nor does it show evidence that it would lead to the present bloated Federal Gvt. Bloating was not a problem at either level. the people, then, had more influence on State Governments than they now have on the Federal Gvt. which is probably a reason for less bloating. And the nation grew rapidly and exponentially during limited Central power. The evolutionary power of a free and diverse people, no doubt, was a contributing factor. Had the States retained power against a limited National Gvt., they would now have had to accede more to their constituents and less to a Central power, and would have maintained a more diverse, flexible, innovative, and evolutionary status, thus more likely to succeed, rather than being submissive to a one-size-fits-all Central power whose mistakes will be expanded rather then corrected. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, remember, the States cannot print money, so cannot so carelessly amass multi-trillions of debt. States can financially fail leading to necessary correction. The Federal Gvt. does not allow itself to fail. It just keeps spending and can't be stopped.

Remember also, that, though the Founders wanted limited central power, they did not want a weak Central Gvt. They wanted a strong National Gvt., but that strength had to be limited only to those powers granted in the Constitution. Within, and only within, those limitations was the National Gvt. all-powerful. That is why it is NECESSARY to limit the scope of Central power. When Progressives in Congress and the Presidency created agencies with powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and Progressive judges "interpreted' key clauses to allow such agencies to stand, the Federal Gvt. appropriated nearly all the powers, including those reserved to the States and the People with the exception of some vestiges of the Bill of Rights that can, in the future if necessary, easily be "interpreted" to violate some clause such as the Commerce clause. That is the expanding tyranny that we now face, and most people don't realize what has happened. Nor do they care that much so long as the Government maintains a pretense of benevolence.


You have mentioned that all that is needed for correction is for our government to act responsibly. That a few structural corrections would suffice. I asked what those corrections are, but you didn't respond. This would be a good a time as any to do so.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.

-spence

The odds of SCOTUS upholding the HCB are fairly good. The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, the Due Process Clause, and others have been intentionally "interpreted" in the past to mean what they were not meant to mean and what is clearly not stated in the Constitution. This has created the mass of Bad Case Law and accepted Law necessary for this country to function as a regulatory, administrative State rather than a Constitutionally representative one. Striking down the HCB could lead to reversals of what has been built, and if done too quickly, it could lead to widespread hardship. The more conservative constitutionally leaning justices have an onerous task. The progressive ones, like Kagan who is in favor not only of the HCB, but of the administrative State, will have no doubts as to their verdict or its consequences.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

-spence

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?

Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

-spence

More likely it would be better with Home Rule and a small Fed Govt. allowing the people close access to the governing officials and issues.
For instance, when you have a gripe in your community or county, you can attend Council or Freeholder meetings to express your opinions and keep an eye on local and State issues.You are a face.
Except for an occasional Town Hall Meeting, phone call or e-mail you are just a
number to the Feds.
Can't imagine anything more bloated, inefficient or wastefull than things are now.

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein:uhuh:

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors:)

Hi, almost neighbor. How did the liberal bastions Ann Arbor and Detroit produce such as we? Being in the belly of the beast teaches the causes of it's dyspepsia.

Your 1846 Times of London piece shows the timelessness of human nature. You can find these gems written as far back as the ancient civilizations. We have a fundamental kinship with our ancient predecessors that belies the notion that we are a product of history rather than history being a product of us. The belief that history, governments, and constitutions are living entities that change or become outdated, obsolete, because of historical progress ignores our nature, and sees it also as evolving through historical progress. It is as though the American Revolution and the form of government that was founded was the high point in some historical movement to experiment with some peculiar notion of "individual liberty," and was fine as a point in history when monarchs and tyrants still ruled and when human nature had not historically evolved beyond it's good and bad elements. The Constitution was fine for a time when individuals had to protect themselves against the inclination in their nature to violate other's rights in order to profit. But now, we have been transported by history to a point in time where we can educate the elimination of the bad in our nature. So we no longer need to fear our rulers, for they will, by dint of historical progress, be benevolent, keeping as their trust the improvement of humanity by a more efficient governmental administrative system. So we don't need the cumbersome constitutional system which has lost its meaning in the modern world. That it has been a stealth revolution rather than a bloody one is evidence that history has solved the barbaric practice of men to bring about change only with violence. That, unbeknownst to the citizens, their form of government, one founded on a Constitution which was almost religiously revered, had been through political slight of hand, changed to fit the era in which they live. There is still a pretense of adhering to that document, but the language used has different meaning than the original document. Words like commerce, regulate, general welfare, among the States, and so on, mean something different to today's legislators and judges than what they meant to the framers. So the Constitution has been brought to life, to fit in with the other living abstractions of the modern age, such as government and history. Ideas have been given a living, breathing, quality by the progressive age. And as such, they have a new type of nature--not one that is fundamental and unchanging, but one that constantly evolves. No telling what evolution the living, breathing "history" will go through. No doubt that historical progress will make it an even better, more improved version.

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?
My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

But we all know that the uninsured place a large burden on the entire health care system nationally.

So there's really no such thing as inactivity.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I believe is at the core of the Administration's case, at least in respect to the commerce clause. And to me it does make perfect sense.

That's not to say the entire legislation is perfect. I think there are many other measures regarding tort reform and competition that could also help reduce costs.

-spence

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

As I've stated above, meanings of words in the Constitution have intentionally been changed to mean other than what the framers meant. To correctly "interpret" the words, a judge should apply the meanings at the time of ratification. And, when, in dictionaries of the time, multiple meanings existed, the context of the Constitutional phrasing and the recorded arguments at ratification and collateral literature such as newspapers, the Federalist Papers, etc. should be consulted. The context within the Constitution and wide usage of articles at the time as well as the Federalist Papers reveal a consistent meaning of "regulate" as used in the Constitution meant something like "to make regular" or "to make well-functioning." Nowhere is there an indication that to regulate, as used in the Constitution, meant to prohibit an activity nor to force activities that would infringe on the sovereign rights of the People. Prohibiting "inactivity" is clearly not a function of "regulate" as used in the Constitution. But, as I say, meanings of words such as "regulate" have been transformed from the narrow definition that was obvious at ratification to convenient "interpretation" that allowed the Federal Gvt. power it was not, clearly, intended to have. FDR's court was the main turning point.

But we all know that the uninsured place a large burden on the entire health care system nationally.

So there's really no such thing as inactivity.

That's not only a non-sequitur, but a contradiction. First, it doesn't follow that because the uninsured, supposedly, place a large burden that there is really no such thing as inactivity. Then to say that something which doesn't exist places a burden, is actually saying that that something DOES exist. Also saying that by not actively participating in the purchase of insurance is not inactivity in such participation means that all inaction is action. This may be true in some absolutist, minimalist philosophy in the same sense that no matter what we do, or don't do, is in some measure, responsible for the condition of the world. That may be true, but we do make verbal distinctions that are necessary for well functioning lives and societies. And if choosing not to participate in an activity means we have actually chosen to participate, we are doing so in a different way toward a different end. That is freedom of choice and association which is not to be abridged by the Federal Gvt.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I believe is at the core of the Administration's case, at least in respect to the commerce clause. And to me it does make perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense to one who subscribes to current progressive interpretation of "regulate" and "commerce." In researching the meaning of "commerce" at the time, it also was consistently used in the narrow sense of actual trade and barter. Even though dictionaries of the time had other usages of the word, it was not used in the proceedings, writings, etc. of the time in other than the narrow definition. Also the Constitution limits Federal regulation to interstate (among the States) commerce. But, again, under FDR's Court, the definition of Commerce was expanded to mean anything that in the aggregate could somehow affect commerce. And this interpretation was allowed to apply within a State or locality, lifting the interstate requirement. Which is to say, everything we do, or don't do can somehow, no matter how remotely, affect commerce. These interpretations mean that the Federal Gvt. can "regulate" you to do whatever it wishes. Is that, is or is that not, tyrannical? And, if that is what the framers meant, why bother with the rest of the Constitution? The Constitution could have been reduced to one sentence--The Federal Government has the power to regulate.

That's not to say the entire legislation is perfect. I think there are many other measures regarding tort reform and competition that could also help reduce costs.

-spence

As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

As I've stated above, meanings of words in the Constitution have intentionally been changed to mean other than what the framers meant. To correctly "interpret" the words, a judge should apply the meanings at the time of ratification. And, when, in dictionaries of the time, multiple meanings existed, the context of the Constitutional phrasing and the recorded arguments at ratification and collateral literature such as newspapers, the Federalist Papers, etc. should be consulted. The context within the Constitution and wide usage of articles at the time as well as the Federalist Papers reveal a consistent meaning of "regulate" as used in the Constitution meant something like "to make regular" or "to make well-functioning." Nowhere is there an indication that to regulate, as used in the Constitution, meant to prohibit an activity nor to force activities that would infringe on the sovereign rights of the People. Prohibiting "inactivity" is clearly not a function of "regulate" as used in the Constitution. But, as I say, meanings of words such as "regulate" have been transformed from the narrow definition that was obvious at ratification to convenient "interpretation" that allowed the Federal Gvt. power it was not, clearly, intended to have. FDR's court was the main turning point.
I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

That's not only a non-sequitur, but a contradiction. First, it doesn't follow that because the uninsured, supposedly, place a large burden that there is really no such thing as inactivity. Then to say that something which doesn't exist places a burden, is actually saying that that something DOES exist. Also saying that by not actively participating in the purchase of insurance is not inactivity in such participation means that all inaction is action. This may be true in some absolutist, minimalist philosophy in the same sense that no matter what we do, or don't do, is in some measure, responsible for the condition of the world. That may be true, but we do make verbal distinctions that are necessary for well functioning lives and societies. And if choosing not to participate in an activity means we have actually chosen to participate, we are doing so in a different way toward a different end. That is freedom of choice and association which is not to be abridged by the Federal Gvt.
I think you just made the Administration's case :hihi:

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

It makes perfect sense to one who subscribes to current progressive interpretation of "regulate" and "commerce." In researching the meaning of "commerce" at the time, it also was consistently used in the narrow sense of actual trade and barter. Even though dictionaries of the time had other usages of the word, it was not used in the proceedings, writings, etc. of the time in other than the narrow definition. Also the Constitution limits Federal regulation to interstate (among the States) commerce. But, again, under FDR's Court, the definition of Commerce was expanded to mean anything that in the aggregate could somehow affect commerce. And this interpretation was allowed to apply within a State or locality, lifting the interstate requirement. Which is to say, everything we do, or don't do can somehow, no matter how remotely, affect commerce. These interpretations mean that the Federal Gvt. can "regulate" you to do whatever it wishes. Is that, is or is that not, tyrannical? And, if that is what the framers meant, why bother with the rest of the Constitution? The Constitution could have been reduced to one sentence--The Federal Government has the power to regulate.

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.


As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

This is a classic case of the government creating the problem (The Emergency Medical Treatment Act) and then swooping in as the saviour to solve it. And the situation was supposedly made "regular" by that act. To say that it is now "irregular" and will be made "regular" by another act that will have similar discrepancies in who will bear the burdens of cost, but now through an even more sweeping and classically unconstitutional Act is further mandating that transfer of wealth as a goal is the ultimate regulation. Making commerce regular is not making it all the same, but allowing it to function under the same rules. Making interstate commerce "regular" was originally intended to make commerce between States freer, not to mandate that there be commerce, or any particular type of commerce. The only function of the Federal Gvt. regulation was to allow commerce to be free from interstate commercial wars such as tariffs and restrictions against import or sale of goods from other States. Commerce would thus be made "regular" between the States and flourish rather than suffer from interstate restrictions. And regulating INTERstate commerce was not, originally, about INTRAstate health care nor how those within a State pay for it. As I said, removing the interstate aspect, redefining "commerce" to mean anything that might possibly affect it, and "broadening" the definition of "regulate" to include power to prohibit commerce or to require that there be a certain or certain type of commerce ,or even, now, to create a whole structure of a new definition of commerce that can be mandated universally regardless of place, would not be remotely possibe under the Constitution as written--but, obviously possible under the rewritten one that is the fellow traveller of the administrative state.

I think you just made the Administration's case :hihi:

No, the reduction of inactivity to activity is absurd. It's just a linguistic trick, like what most of progressive reasoning is. Non-existence is existence. Yeah, right. That only works as an abstract thought puzzle. What if you insert a concrete object in the puzzle? The turtle that doesn't exist is the turtle that exists. I suppose such a turtle should be forced to buy health care. Under strict textual interpretation, if I choose to not buy something, there is no commerce. And that something, to boot, is within my State, not interstate, there is nothing, under the original Constitution, for the Federal Gvt. to "make regular". I would not be a part of that commercial process so would not be under its regulation. Bearing in mind, also, that regulate under that Consitution did not partake in its meaning any prohibitive or coercive notion against individual rights. But under the redefined words of our progressive administrative State my not buying something, in the total aggregate of such inaction, might affect the price of health care, so I must, therefore, buy something I don't want to buy, and the absurdity of inactivity being activity and my being forced to engage in an activity which is entirely different than the inactivity/activity I prefer, is perfectly fine.

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

There's that administrative mentality which believes that even being on one's own must be government mandated.

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.

At the time of the Constitution most health care was not interstate. And most was paid for out of pocket--so was much cheaper. Of course, most health care today is also not interstate, but that portion of the Constitution has been "interpreted" out of existence, and today, with third party pay, and various government regulations, health care is vastly more expensive than if it were paid out of pocket. As has been mentioned, States are free to have their own "plans" for how to pay for it. That you consider the Federal Government being the administrator is more efficient, is not Constitutionally relevant. It is not, classically, a Federal responsibility. And arguments about efficiency and cost are too often proven wrong--efficiency leading to inflexibility and costs actually becoming greater, but those are irrelevant considerations. ITS NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.


I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

I wasn't informed about such a conservative subscription. Nor is it relevant to the Constitution. No, an error "standing the test of time" is still an error. Besides, what makes you conclude that it has stood the test. If there is constant regulation and re-regulation and system failure and costs and debt beyond the possibility of paying, and a surrender of State, local, and individual rights to a behemoth central power with no end in sight to it's expansive regulatory power, what test has this been standing?

Man! The mundane collective! That's conservative? Who was talking about conservative anyway? Thought we were talking Constitution. I don't know--aren't collectives more a progressive, socialist thing?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence

It's not about respect for the Founders. It's about what kind of government you want. I don't find collectivism, and all-powerful, unrepresentative government to be wise.

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

-spence

a repeating theme when the two of you engage is that one argues specifically for or against something and the other is constantly proposing muddled arguments around something...usually the Constitution

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...:uhuh:

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

This shows how far from the original language and meaning of the Constitution the Court has strayed. The plain language "commerce" as used at the time of ratification meant "trade and exchange of goods." That Hudson had to argue about "economic inactivity" rather than directly stating that when no purchase is made, there is no exchange, therefore there is no commerce, shows how convoluted arguments must now be to satisfy current "interpretation."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, translate: I choose not to buy your product (no exchange, no commerce) Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Naw, I got my own reasons which are different than my neighbor's reason, and why should you be telling me that the government can force me to buy it now or ever?

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

Whether such documents exist or not, is irrelevant to the Constitution (as originally written). The Congressional power therein granted was to regulate COMMERCE not to regulate anything other than actual commerce which might in some way affect commerce, and that commerce was to be made regular among the States, INTERSTATE, and the regulation was only to make freer, more functional and regular, the existing commerce created by the People not to prohibit commerce nor to demand it or create it.

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...:uhuh:

Whatever and if such documents exists, they have to apply to what was formally referred to as the Interstate Commerce Clause but is now simply called the Commerce Clause. This new Commerce Clause was given birth in the FDR Court which firstly expanded "Commerce" to include agriculture and manufacture and production. The narrow meaning of commerce the founders used did not include these items, but only referred to trade and exchange of goods. Aghriculture and manufacture were always referred to by the framers as separate from commerce--the goods produced from agriculture and manufacture only became commerce when they were exchanged on the market. Thus, commerce was expanded to be more than the actual trade and exchange, but that which had an affect or could lead to such exchange. Then, in WICKARD, it was determined also that anything or action that could lead to lowering of the price of goods could also be considered to affect commerce--Even if there was no sale or cross-border activity. This, virtually, redefined the meaning of to regulate commerce among the several States to be any and all things that might have some affect on the market/economy, which means just about anything or action we do or take regardless of whether or not it occurs within State or across borders. This, virtually, gives Congress the power to regulate almost all of our activity.

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

Progressives know full well and admit that they intend to contradict the intent of the founders. They believe the founding document is outdated and irrelevant. They realize it would be too difficult, at this time, to formally rewrite the Constitution through a new Con-Con, amending it is too slow as well as too dificult, so they informally rewrite it through progressive jurisprudence redefining the meaning of the words. And, yes, the progressive aim is to give unlimited power to the Central Gvt. bureacracy. And this authority over the individual is for his own benefit. That you express concern that future administrations might not be as benevolent to the People as current progressives claim to be, is unwarranted. We have arrived at a point in history when the People and the administrators understand the necessity of fairness and equality. Our educational institutions teach and profess this as the true and necessary mission of our lives. The "individual" cannot stand out as separate from the community if we are to achieve total fairness and equality. And the community expresses itself in the benevolent State. The community, the State, and the individual are part of one and the same living, breathing, entity. You do not have to fear malevolent future administrations. They are part of the same living organism as is the individual. They are one and the same.

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

-spence

Here's another read for you:

Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011TheWashingtonPost
Is health care cost-shifting real?

By Jennifer Rubin


In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit earlier this week, the government’s lawyer and the Obamacare challengers’ lawyer faced off on the legality of the individual mandate. The Obama administration’s lawyer was on the defensive, as the Associated Press reported:


Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.

“That’s what stops the slippery slope,” he said.

As a preliminary matter, this sort of rationale is inappropriate for constitutional analysis. If the Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to buy something you don’t want, why does a policy argument (cost-shifting) suddenly bestow constitutional legitimacy on the individual mandate? The idea that “because we have a really good reason for doing it so it must be constitutional” is in fact the “slippery slope” personified. The government invariably is convinced it has a really good reason for doing something; it’s the courts’ job to determine if the text and framework of the Constitution allow it to do it.

Yuval Levin has a more compelling rebuttal: The argument isn’t true. He writes:


[C]ost shifting from the uninsured to the insured today is pretty negligible. Cost shifting from Medicaid—which pays doctors very poorly, forcing them to overcharge patients with private insurance—is greater, but it will grow, not shrink, under Obamacare, since the law would vastly expand the scope of Medicaid coverage without reforming the program. Cost shifting does not provide a legal justification for the individual mandate, but it does contribute to the policy argument for repealing Obamacare.

Levin references a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard and Daniel Kessler. In that piece the authors explain:


A study conducted by George Mason University Prof. Jack Hadley and John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin and Dawn Miller of the Urban Institute, and published in the journal Health Affairs in 2008, found that so-called cost shifting raises private health insurance premiums by a negligible amount. The study’s authors conclude: “Private insurance premiums are at most 1.7 percent higher because of the shifting of the costs of the uninsured to private insurance.” For the typical insurance plan, this amounts to approximately $80 per year.

The Health Affairs study is supported by another recent peer- reviewed study that focused exclusively on physicians. That 2007 study, authored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists Jonathan Gruber and David Rodriguez and published in the Journal of Health Economics, found no evidence that doctors charged insured patients higher fees to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.
The authors argue that the government relied on sloppy, flawed studies to come up with the cost-shifting rationale. They explain:


Specifically, Congress ignored the $40 billion to $50 billion that is spent annually by charitable organizations and federal, state and local governments to reimburse doctors and hospitals for the cost of caring for the uninsured. These payments, which amount to approximately three-fourths of the cost of such care, mitigate the extent of cost shifting and reduce the magnitude of the hidden tax on private insurance.

Moreover, the economics of markets for health services suggests that any cost shifting that may occur is unlikely to affect interstate commerce. Because markets for doctor and hospital services are local--not national--the impact of cost shifting will be borne where it occurs, not across state lines.

If accurate, this is quite a problem from a policy perspective for the defenders of the individual mandate. If the free-rider problem (as Mitt Romney liked to refer to it) is virtually nonexistent there certainly must be cheaper ways to address the problem of the uninsured. And if in the Medicare system Obamacare duplicates the Medicaid problem (“Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are so low that the program creates a cost shift of its own”), Obamacare will dramatically increase cost-shifting. As the adage goes, you’ll see how expensive health care will be when it’s free.

The lesson here applies not only to Obamacare. Government schemes to monkey with the marketplace are rarely as precise as their creators would have us believe. Central control is and always has been a poor substitute for real marketplaces in which willing sellers and buyers set prices. When the government forces or cajoles buyers into the market (whether it be to purchase health care or “affordable” housing) it rarely turns out as planned.

By Jennifer Rubin | 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011

Progressives know full well and admit that they intend to contradict the intent of the founders. They believe the founding document is outdated and irrelevant. They realize it would be too difficult, at this time, to formally rewrite the Constitution through a new Con-Con, amending it is too slow as well as too dificult, so they informally rewrite it through progressive jurisprudence redefining the meaning of the words. And, yes, the progressive aim is to give unlimited power to the Central Gvt. bureacracy. And this authority over the individual is for his own benefit.

There is a bothersome component to the idealogical thinking on the left that is reflected in their elected officials, pundints and among their supporters which is:

"we are smarter than you, we know what's good for you and you are obviously too stupid(insert various pejoratives) to "get it"...and since you don't "get it" we are obligated to make you "get it"....

I'd look for some serious domestic unrest over the next year...it's already starting :uhuh: