liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

That is about your level of discourse 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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That is about your level of discourse 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...

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

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

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;926715]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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???

[scottw]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=scottw;926900]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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.

-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...

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

-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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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