Health Mandate Unconstitutional?

[JayB]

Interesting - seems like there's a legitimate civil liberties angle there but the ACLU is of course free to focus on whatever it wants to.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Interesting - seems like there's a legitimate civil liberties angle there but the ACLU is of course free to focus on whatever it wants to.

 

 

They are probably too busy focusing on NAMBLA's freedom of speech. Much more important.

[j_b]

The ACLU is certainly not busy tackling Citizens United and the supreme court sanctioned flooding of our elections by corporate dollars toward corrupt politicians. Right wing corporate shills don't say anything about these kinds of civil right violations because their favorite candidates benefit heavily from attending feeding at the trough.

[Fairweather]

Yes, seeing your president breach protocol regarding separation of powers at his 2009 State of the Union speech was a real treat. Reminded me of the fragile partition which separates us (not you) from thugs.

[mattp]

What are you talking about, Fairweather? In 2010 he criticized the Supreme Court, but what was the separation of powers controversy in 2009?

 

And thugs? He has continued the policies of your man, Bush, but how has Obama matched "you're either with us or against us" or championed domestic spying or, really, anything else "thuggish?"

 

Obama's shortcoming, in my book, is that he hasn't been tough enough. If there was a public option, which he "bargained away," wouldn't any legal challenge to the requirement for the purchase of health insurance be weaker?

 

Would your candidate McCain, and his sidekick Palin, be less "thuggish?" Really? How about John Boehner? Or ... you-name-the-politician...?

[Fairweather]

You're right, it was the 2010 State of the Union speech. Are you telling me that you didn't find it shocking that a sitting president saw fit to "call out" members of the Supreme Court face-to-face and in public regarding the Citizens United case? Really? These were the actions of a thug--not a president.

[mattp]

If "calling out" the supreme court in a political speach is the act of a thug, what do you call "outing" a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband and intimidate other would-be leakers? Oh wait: you strongly defended your boy Bush and his team of freedom fighters in that matter.

 

Obama's folks are children compared to your gang.

[Off_White]

Story of a FactCheck.org, a non-partisan watchdog group calling bullshit and lies at a cost of $3.1 million for the ads on Obamacare from the government. Having a little bit of an issue keeping the lies straight.

 

FactCheck gets the front quote, but most of that article quotes Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch, a considerably more conservative operation.

[AlpineK]

You're right, it was the 2010 State of the Union speech. Are you telling me that you didn't find it shocking that a sitting president saw fit to "call out" members of the Supreme Court face-to-face and in public regarding the Citizens United case? Really? These were the actions of a thug--not a president.

 

Umm Doesn't the constitution create three branches of government? From my experience three people working on a project may not always agree with each other and debate/argue. Sitting presidents don't always agree with congress, and disputes become public.

[ivan]

If "calling out" the supreme court in a political speach is the act of a thug, what do you call "outing" a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband and intimidate other would-be leakers? Oh wait: you strongly defended your boy Bush and his team of freedom fighters in that matter.

 

Obama's folks are children compared to your gang.

irony is wasted on your conservatives

[Fairweather]

If "calling out" the supreme court in a political speach is the act of a thug, what do you call "outing" a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband and intimidate other would-be leakers? Oh wait: you strongly defended your boy Bush and his team of freedom fighters in that matter.

 

Obama's folks are children compared to your gang.

 

Your WikiLeaks guy makes Scooter Libby look like a piker--and isn't really related to the question you need to address. (Where is your outrage, Matt?) Again, can you remember a president ever using the State of the Union address to try to humiliate the Supreme Court? BTW:Citizens United was a good decision, don't you think?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Fairweather

[j_b]

The Wikileaks dude is a foreign journalist doing his job of publishing information he came across, Libby was a US vice presidential adviser doing the leaking. Can you tell the wee-bit difference perhaps?

 

and NO, a presumed breach of protocol in addressing the supreme court isn't equivalent to corporatist judges opening the floodgates to corporate money in elections, thereby violating the civil rights of all American voters.

[billcoe]

Your WikiLeaks guy makes Scooter Libby look like a piker--and isn't really related to the question you need to address. (Where is your outrage, Matt?) Again, can you remember a president ever using the State of the Union address to try to humiliate the Supreme Court? BTW:Citizens United was a good decision, don't you think?

 

Huh? Piker? No way. Perhaps a pause to compare how many people actually died in the Iraq war would be appropriate here. Then we can point to the Yellow cake affair/Joe Wilson/Valery and the lies that led to all of those people dead in some bullshit war. If they'd wikileaked that crap as the stampede to war was on, maybe there would be a lot more people alive, the world would be a safer place and the US would have more $ in the bank instead of being nearly bankrupt. Those in power appear to have committed high crimes and treason and it should be looked into a long time before some asshole Aussie rummaging through our wastebaskets even gets a 2nd look.

[mattp]

Fairweather, I realize that the commentators on FOX and at the Heritage Foundation were all up in arms about it but I don’t think it was quite that big of an outrage for Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision - even in a State of the Union speech. And, while Obama took the first shot, Roberts in his follow up remarks criticized the President right back. While you may think these actions violate decorum I don’t see a Constitutional crisis inherent in either.

 

Actually, I fear the Constitutional implications of the Citizens United decision more.

 

 

And Assange? He’s an embarrassment, to be sure. But Bill is right he did not lie to take us into war and I, for one, am looking forward to his promised leaks about the banking industry.

[JayB]

When it's possible for a PFC or his equivalent to gain access to diplomatic cables, etc - then leaks of this magnitude were practically inevitable. If there's anyone at fault here - it's the folks in charge of keeping the information secure.

 

I don't think that you can construct a legal response against Assange that wouldn't grant the state a whole raft of repressive powers that they could use against journalists, etc - so that particular cure would be way worse than this specific manifestation of the information-security disease.

 

Getting back to the constitutionality of the bill - does the Commerce Clause of the constitution really grant the government the power to purchase a commercial product as a condition of your existence?

 

 

 

[ivan]

Getting back to the constitutionality of the bill - does the Commerce Clause of the constitution really grant the government the power to purchase a commercial product as a condition of your existence?

 

 

to use the word "really" implies the authors actually thought about the idea at all - pretty certain universal healthcare wasn't on the radar back in the 1780s

 

healthcare is necessary in order to exist - sure, a man theoritically can say "i'm never going to the doctor so i'm not paying a damn cent for healthcare," but as soon as he's lopped a finger off w/ a chain-saw he'll still end up in the ER, and the ER is required by the government to give him service, right?

[tvashtarkatena]

The ACLU is certainly not busy tackling Citizens United and the supreme court sanctioned flooding of our elections by corporate dollars toward corrupt politicians. Right wing corporate shills don't say anything about these kinds of civil right violations because their favorite candidates benefit heavily from attending feeding at the trough.

 

The ACLU did tackle Citizens United: we argued in favor of that non-profit's right to free speech. That the Supreme Court extended that ruling to lift restrictions on corporate contributions to uncoordinated campaigns was, of course, far outside the ACLU's limited 1st amendment agenda. The organization is still discussing its policy on contributions as speech in light of the new ruling.

 

The ACLU is currently focused (and fully booked up - thank you JayB for actually recognizing real world constraints for once) on drug policy reform, privacy, equal protection for committed couples, and several other issues more core to a human rights focus than property rights.

[Jim]

The organization is still discussing its policy on contributions as speech in light of the new ruling.

 

Oopsie. Need to be careful who you sleep with. Sorry about that one, we'll move on now.

[rbw1966]

The executive branch criticizing the judicial branch (and vice versa) is exactly what checks and balances are all about.

[ivan]

The executive branch criticizing the judicial branch (and vice versa) is exactly what checks and balances are all about.

FAHQ'N'A!

 

jesus, that was the BEST part of that goddamn speech - its nice to see members of a profession based almost entirely on acting fake occasionaly show a true spark of humanity

[JayB]

Getting back to the constitutionality of the bill - does the Commerce Clause of the constitution really grant the government the power to purchase a commercial product as a condition of your existence?

 

 

to use the word "really" implies the authors actually thought about the idea at all - pretty certain universal healthcare wasn't on the radar back in the 1780s

 

healthcare is necessary in order to exist - sure, a man theoritically can say "i'm never going to the doctor so i'm not paying a damn cent for healthcare," but as soon as he's lopped a finger off w/ a chain-saw he'll still end up in the ER, and the ER is required by the government to give him service, right?

 

I think that they realized that they couldn't predict the future, but one of the central purposes, if not the central purpose, of the document was to enumerate what the Federal government had the power to do and what it didn't.

 

If I'm not mistaken, when the champions of the individual mandate were looking for the constitutional basis for the power to force people to buy health insurance have concluded that they'd found it in the commerce clause. I'm not convinced that it does, and I think that's the basis on which the constitutionality of the law is being challenged.

 

Just to flesh out your argument a bit more - what about the case of the guy who has enough money to self insure?

 

[j_b]

The ACLU did tackle Citizens United: we argued in favor of that non-profit's right to free speech. That the Supreme Court extended that ruling to lift restrictions on corporate contributions to uncoordinated campaigns was, of course, far outside the ACLU's limited 1st amendment agenda. The organization is still discussing its policy on contributions as speech in light of the new ruling.

 

The ACLU needs to take position on corporate personhood insofar it is used by corporatists to deny civil rights to Americans.

 

The ACLU is currently focused (and fully booked up - thank you JayB for actually recognizing real world constraints for once) on drug policy reform, privacy, equal protection for committed couples, and several other issues more core to a human rights focus than property rights.

 

what about the ACLU getting busy with voting rights for Americans? is that core enough to make the human right grade?

[JayB]

"The ACLU needs to take position on corporate personhood insofar it is used by corporatists to deny civil rights to Americans."

 

Concrete examples?

[j_b]

There are thousands of examples of corporate personhood being used to trump civil rights and it is testimony to your tone deafness that you need an example.

 

Of course, since we were mentioning it, corporations being allowed to buy their favorite politician is a full frontal assault on voting rights.

 

But, for an additional example, what about the right to grow up without commercialism and the constant infringement of its marketeering in the lives of children. Come on JayB, what about the right to grow up without commercial propaganda?

[JayB]

There are thousands of examples of corporate personhood being used to trump civil rights and it is testimony to your tone deafness that you need an example.

 

Of course, since we were mentioning it, corporations being allowed to buy there favorite politician is a full frontal assault on voting rights.

 

But, for an additional example, what about the right to grow up without commercialism and the constant infringement of its marketeering in the lives of children. Come on JayB, what about the right to grow up without commercial propaganda?

 

 

How about indulging my tone-deafness and providing a concrete example or two?

 

If there are thousands it should be a snap.

 

Is "the right to grow up without commercial propoganda" a civil right with any basis in our legal system?