AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democrats, stop effing pretending your President thinks Obamacare is Constitutional
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democrats, stop effing pretending your President thinks Obamacare is Constitutional - Page 2

post #41 of 52
4/2/12 at 6:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What would the founding fathers think about forcing individuals to purchase a private product?

Don't know. Some were mercantilists so I have no doubt they'd think it was ok. Others would be strongly opposed. Others might not have a strong opinion either way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Could we possibly amend the constitution to force people to do something they don't want to do?

Absolutely. Here's how to do it.


The question of whether it would be in the spirit of what the whole constitution is about...well that's a separate question. But there is a fairly precise and well-define process for amending the constitution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 52
4/2/12 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Don't know. Some were mercantilists so I have no doubt they'd think it was ok. Others would be strongly opposed. Others might not have a strong opinion either way.

Actually, they did. That's a fact. Although we have nothing like the Congressional record from those early days, there was no published debate, and the law in question apparently passed without much hoo-hah.
Quote:
Absolutely. Here's how to do it.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the process.
Quote:
The question of whether it would be in the spirit of what the whole constitution is about...well that's a separate question. But there is a fairly precise and well-define process for amending the constitution.

But the question was whether we should amend the Constitution to force people do something a very high portion of them very clearly might not want to do. SHOULD we? COULD we?

We did.

There is a precedent. So there's no reason we wouldn't be able to do it again for a different cause, assuming enough of Congress gets behind it and the States follow.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 52
4/2/12 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, they did. That's a fact.

They did what? What is a fact?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Although we have nothing like the Congressional record from those early days, there was no published debate, and the law in question apparently passed without much hoo-hah.

What law?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But the question was whether we should amend the Constitution to force people do something a very high portion of them very clearly might not want to do. SHOULD we? COULD we?

Well your question was we could.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We did.

Who is we and what did we do?!


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is a precedent. So there's no reason we wouldn't be able to do it again for a different cause, assuming enough of Congress gets behind it and the States follow.

What precedent are you talking about?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 52
4/2/12 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

They did what? What is a fact?

Washington and Madison passed a bill forcing people to purchase something with their own money.
Quote:
What law?

The Militia Acts of 1792.
Quote:
Who is we and what did we do?!

We passed a law that required people to do something life changing that they did not want to do, directly taking away their personal liberty in a way far beyond any public mandate of purchase. Of course, I'm talking about the draft, and I am sure you are 100% against it, historically and in the future, so you don't have to explain that to me.
Quote:
What precedent are you talking about?!

Forcing people to do something they might not want to do. Like buying insurance. Or getting vaccinated, for instance. The draft was far worse than either of those, and in the case of Vietnam, completely ineffective and counterproductive.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 52
4/2/12 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Washington and Madison passed a bill forcing people to purchase something with their own money.

The Militia Acts of 1792.

OK. Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We passed a law that required people to do something life changing that they did not want to do, directly taking away their personal liberty in a way far beyond any public mandate of purchase. Of course, I'm talking about the draft, and I am sure you are 100% against it, historically and in the future, so you don't have to explain that to me.

Well we didn't. They did. And it has since been (sorta) rescinded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Forcing people to do something they might not want to do. Like buying insurance. Or getting vaccinated, for instance. The draft was far worse than either of those, and in the case of Vietnam, completely ineffective and counterproductive.

Agreed that the draft is worse. Basically a form of slavery.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 52
4/2/12 at 2:20pm
Thread Starter 
Obama says overturning Obamacare would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qv6ESfAF


Keep in mind...this was part of a rose garden press conference involving the leaders of Canada and Mexico. It was a summit on economic issues. Even Calderon weighed in on how the U.S. should follow its lead on universal healthcare.

I'll tell you who's nearly unprecedented: The POTUS preemptively attacking the USSC before a decision has even been made. Also, a former Constitutional lawyer who says that the supreme court shouldn't overturn legislation because it was passed by "a majority of the house and senate." That's what unprecedented.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #47 of 52
4/2/12 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama says overturning Obamacare would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qv6ESfAF


Keep in mind...this was part of a rose garden press conference involving the leaders of Canada and Mexico. It was a summit on economic issues. Even Calderon weighed in on how the U.S. should follow its lead on universal healthcare.

I'll tell you who's nearly unprecedented: The POTUS preemptively attacking the USSC before a decision has even been made. Also, a former Constitutional lawyer who says that the supreme court shouldn't overturn legislation because it was passed by "a majority of the house and senate." That's what unprecedented.

I agree. That was another idiotic thing for Obama to say.

His attempt at pointing out the hypocrisy of the right, though valid, makes him am example of that very hypocrisy.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 52
4/2/12 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I agree. That was another idiotic thing for Obama to say.

His attempt at pointing out the hypocrisy of the right, though valid, makes him am example of that very hypocrisy.

The right has never labeled throwing out laws on Constitutional grounds as judicial activism, so it's not valid as all. Glad we agree on the first point.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #49 of 52
4/2/12 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The right has never labeled throwing out laws on Constitutional grounds as judicial activism.

Reply
Reply
post #50 of 52
4/3/12 at 4:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Judicial activism is crafting new laws and rights with court decisions. Tossing out laws in their whole is not activism. Doing so does not create a new law. Just gets rid of an old one.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #51 of 52
4/3/12 at 7:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Judicial activism is crafting new laws and rights with court decisions. Tossing out laws in their whole is not activism. Doing so does not create a new law. Just gets rid of an old one.

He doesn't seem to get that. Activism is, say, ordering the legislature to make gay marriage legal (happened) Or ordering a new vote count and extending a certification deadline in violation of clear election law (happened). It's writing new law.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #52 of 52
4/3/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He doesn't seem to get that. Activism is, say, ordering the legislature to make gay marriage legal (happened) Or ordering a new vote count and extending a certification deadline in violation of clear election law (happened). It's writing new law.

Or school bussing or like in NJ where the court dictates school funding state wide.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democrats, stop effing pretending your President thinks Obamacare is Constitutional