Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-13-2010, 02:33 PM   #1
UserRemoved1
Permanently Disconnected
iTrader: (-9)
 
UserRemoved1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,647
unconstitutional

U.S. Health-Care Law's Mandate Thrown Out by Judge - Bloomberg


So does this mean that Ma healthcare is now unconstitutional too?
UserRemoved1 is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 02:42 PM   #2
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& View Post
U.S. Health-Care Law's Mandate Thrown Out by Judge - Bloomberg


So does this mean that Ma healthcare is now unconstitutional too?
Will be interesting to see the long-term fight over this and will certainly lead to a Supreme Court decision. After the SC decision, then we will see the MA law get challenged - obviously that assumes the SC will make the hopeful 5-4 decision striking it down.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 02:45 PM   #3
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Not my usual sarcastic comment - but seriously, the Big O has not been able to do many things correctly

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 03:00 PM   #4
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
This highlights, for me, that in these times what is the most important factor in your choice of POTUS in 2012 is not how well they deliver a speech, or handle hit-job interviews, or even how they will "fix" the economy, but who they will appoint to the Supreme Court. There will probably be a couple of seats available on the Court, as well as the usual numerous lower and district courts.
detbuch is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 03:25 PM   #5
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
Not my usual sarcastic comment - but seriously, the Big O has not been able to do many things correctly
Seems to be a common theme of the Presidency over the last 10 years. At this point, I don't expect anyone in a federal position to do things correctly (or constitutionally).
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 03:31 PM   #6
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
This highlights, for me, that in these times what is the most important factor in your choice of POTUS in 2012 is not how well they deliver a speech, or handle hit-job interviews, or even how they will "fix" the economy, but who they will appoint to the Supreme Court. There will probably be a couple of seats available on the Court, as well as the usual numerous lower and district courts.
One of the points I stressed when several here were falling in love with Hope and Change.
buckman is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 04:50 PM   #7
Raven
........
iTrader: (0)
 
Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,805
Blog Entries: 1
Question

they haven't even corrected Nixon's transgressions of trampling the
constitution so why would you think it would be any different with this current administration?
Raven is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 05:36 PM   #8
UserRemoved1
Permanently Disconnected
iTrader: (-9)
 
UserRemoved1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,647
ARE YOU SERIOUS?

FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' | CNSnews.com

"Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce."

HUH? interstate commerce??????
UserRemoved1 is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 08:48 PM   #9
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Virginia AG Cuccinelli's statement:

There were two basic arguments in this case.

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.

The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.

Second, the federal government advanced a 'fallback' argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds' fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.

This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint - usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a 'tax' under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.

The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail.
scottw is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 09:09 PM   #10
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& View Post
ARE YOU SERIOUS?

FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' | CNSnews.com

"Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce."

HUH? interstate commerce??????

Unfortunately, the way the Justices have been "interpreting" the commerce clause since FDR's New Deal packed Court, Pelosi may be right.

For the first hundred plus years, such "interpretation" of commerce was not recognized.

The commerce clause in the Constitution gives the Congress power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. The main reason, at the time, for granting Congress that power regarding the States was to stop them from the practice of imposing tariffs and restrictions against each other. It was understood by the Court that congressional regulation was to be applied to actual commerce and only that commerce that occurred between, States (interstate), not to what occurred within a State (intrastate) .

The FDR Court changed that with freakish lawyerese. It held in a case brought by a farmer who was fined for exceeding the "quota" of wheat he could grow, even though the great bulk of the crop was used for personal consumption. The Court decided that if he had not grown the crop for his own use, he would have had to buy it on the commercial market, which would have affected, in that miniscule way, the price of wheat, and that the aggregate of purely local production of goods, even if not intended for interstate commerce, might, in the aggregate have a substantial negative effect on interstate trade.

With that kind of "interpretation" the commerce clause became the primary source of Federal power. There was a brief respite from this judicial madness when the Court, under Renquist, struck down on appeal a Federal conviction of a high school boy who had brought a gun to shcool. The Feds argued that gun possession increased gun violence, which in turn produced less productive citizens, which in turn hurt the national economy. The kid was initially going to be prosecuted by a local court for violating a local ordinance, but the Federal Govt. chose to usurp that authority and could only do so using the commerce clause trick which had not failed since the FDR Court. Justice Jackson of that Court had written in a later memorandum that it "is within the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, if for no better reason than that the commerce clause is what Congress says it is." And Congress used that landmark decision as a club of all inclusive authority--PERIOD! It expected to easily win this case with that authority, but was surprisingly thwarted.

But it didn't take long before the Court was back on the track of expanding Federal power in a case involving home grown marijuana for personal medicinal use. Using the initial local production of wheat case as precedent, it decided that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside Federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions. Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent "respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed State lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

It is estimated that the number of Federal regulations that may be criminally enforced, greatly as a result of this use of the commerce clause, ranges from ten thousand to three hundred thousand.

The Court since FDR has viewed commerce, not as a commercial interaction as it was seen at the time the Constitution was written, but as anything that might affect economic activity even in the most remote way. If the suits against the HC bill can again strike an originalist or textualist chord in the Court, we may slowly creep back to a sanity that rightly limits the Central Government.

Last edited by detbuch; 12-13-2010 at 09:34 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 07:30 AM   #11
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
"Judge Hudson also wrote, "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by [the individual mandate provision in ObamaCare] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

What Cuccinelli did in defeating (for now) the individual mandate actually prevents an historically massive expansion of the federal government's audit and investigation powers.

If every American could be required to purchase health insurance, every American business or household would be subject to federal audits to ensure compliance. With a law over 2,000 pages that even Nancy Pelosi said needed to be passed before we knew what was in it, there assuredly would be lots of compliance requiring audits of individuals, businesses, and even state government.

Government investigations are subject to the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment was written to reflect concerns created by the odious Writs of Assistance.

Those Writs were used to collect taxes, and enforce other laws and court orders. They required presentation of testimony under oath before a judge about the suspected violation, and needed some specification about the place, persons and duration of searches. Colonists objected as procedural protections at common law broke down, and execution of the Writs became more discretionary and abusive.

Despite lessons from the Writs of Assistance, the 4th Amendment became compromised when Congress started creating new federal agencies to regulate interstate commerce, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission in the late 1800s, through Roosevelt's New Deal, and then the many federal agencies created since.

In one 1967 opinion, Justice Byron White wrote, "As government regulation of business enterprises has mushroomed in recent years, the need for effective investigative techniques to achieve the aims of such regulation has been subject to substantial comment and legislation."

In other words, as the federal government expanded its use of the Commerce Clause from keeping interstate commerce open and free to affirmatively burdening it, 4th Amendment protections gradually eroded in direct proportion.

Make no mistake about it: the erosion of the 4th Amendment has been essential to the rapid expansion of big government. Government investigations no longer determine simply whether laws are broken. Often, investigations are used to coerce acceptance of otherwise unlawful or extra-lawful government agency interpretations of law. Even Justice Rutledge wrote, "Officious examination can be expensive, so much so that it eats up men's substance."
scottw is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 09:42 AM   #12
GattaFish
Great White Scup Hunter
iTrader: (0)
 
GattaFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Corner...
Posts: 2,251
Pelosi is a skank...

She was asked what was in Healthcare reform and she said she could not tell them they just needed to vote for it... And the Morons did,,,
GattaFish is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 12:22 PM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
brilliant....

Speaking today on CBS' "Washington Unplugged" with Bob Schieffer, here's how Cuccinelli put it:

"Never before in our history has the federal government ordered Americans to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce. Imagine if this bill were that in order to protect our communities and homeland security, every American had to buy a gun. Can you imagine the reaction across the country to that?"



Yes, we can.

On page 25 of his decision, Judge Hudson writes, "Despite pre-enactment representations to the contrary by the Executive and Legislative branches, the Secretary now argues that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is, in essence, a ‘tax penalty.'"
That's a polite way of saying that the Obama administration willfully misled the public during the health-care debate. In fact, President Obama repeatedly denied that the mandate was a tax - but now, in order to pass constitutional muster, his administration is insisting it is. I urge you to watch the president's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos to see just how emphatic Obama was. When Stephanopoulos says that the mandate is a tax increase, Obama scolds Stephanopoulos. "That's not true, George," the president says. "[It] is absolutely not a tax increase."

Now the president and his administration are arguing exactly the opposite.

Last edited by scottw; 12-15-2010 at 02:38 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 07:14 PM   #14
UserRemoved1
Permanently Disconnected
iTrader: (-9)
 
UserRemoved1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,647
WELL WHATTA YOU KNOW!

Changes May Be On Horizon For Doctors, Patients - Health News Story - WCVB Boston

It DOES work....
UserRemoved1 is offline  
Old 12-15-2010, 07:39 PM   #15
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& View Post
Salty, did you read the first comment ?...I thought it was interesting pertaining to our comments above

"I had Kaiser when I was living on the West Coast and they have pretty much always paid a set yearly amount for each patient, to the doctors. What I got was a miserable long wait in a clinic line to see my assigned Dr. then up to 6 months for approvals and an appt. to see a specialist if needed. Sorry, I'll stickwith paying myout of pocket as long as I can to be able to see the Drs. I need to see, when I need to see them"
scottw is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:28 AM   #16
UserRemoved1
Permanently Disconnected
iTrader: (-9)
 
UserRemoved1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,647
Actually I did but was more interested in the second comment.

"Right now few doctors allow this sort of communication with patients because there’s no way for them to be paid for that time."

With all the money they earn it's still ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Most if not all of these people know how to work the system and they do it.
UserRemoved1 is offline  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:29 AM   #17
UserRemoved1
Permanently Disconnected
iTrader: (-9)
 
UserRemoved1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,647
Hey if they can do it then I'll start charging to answer emails and questions 39 times a day then maybe I can finally make a decent days pay. Next question is $44 for one sentence
UserRemoved1 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com