The Obama war against Fox News

[kiff]

The commerce clause covers health care reform-- and it is the same thing that covers medicare/medicaid. To ask such a question you either have to be an idiot or are specifically ignoring the numerous cases cementing the commerce clause in an attempt to provoke someone.

are you serious? how the hell does the commerce clause cover someone going to their local doctor. it doesn't. we've been through this before. if it did, then EVERY service or thing you buy would also be covered by the CC.

Man, you know what's terrible? Someone that advocates for a rise in the standard of living of the lower classes. What a terrible thought. You mean that he advocates people banding together to fight CEO pay being hundreds of times what other workers in the company are making and push for reasonable compensation? Call the Pinkertons!

wake up....redistribution of wealth via the government... what is that? it's not a free system to say the least...

banding together to fight CEO pays? the share holders of a company have the right to pay them whatever the hell they want.

 

[Crotale]

You, my friend, don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Capitalism and greed go, unfortunately, hand in hand. Without a crapton of checks, capitalism leads to crap piles like that and monopolies like Standard Oil.

Again, capitalism does not equal greed. Yes, there generally is a level of greed, but where does one draw the line at incessant greed and simple desire to succeed? After all, I work for an employer who pays me for my services. I put some of my money away in investments in the hopes that my money will work for me in the future so I won't have to struggle with government handouts when I retire. Does that make me greedy?

If I invested in a highly successful business and I get big dollars in my ROI, does that make me greedy? What about the guy who does nothing with his life and still expects the taxpayers to fund his living expenses? Where is the real greed there? Is it the person who works hard and invests their money as wisely as they can? Is it the person who sponges off society and gives nothing back?

Sure, in a free enterprise system such as the US, it is possible for more persons to obtain greater levels of wealth, but on the other side of the coin, if you lock everyone out of personal success, nobody will succeed and society overall is poorer as the result.

Oh, and when did I say we did not need checks and balances? I merely asked where did we have pure capitalism unchecked without any government or other internal regulation or oversight? What we had was hardly capitalism run amok, but more like mismanagement at its worst on all accounts.

 

[hal]

Here's what some of you are ignoring... there's a reason the US is structured the way that it is - all throughout history well-meaning powerful central governments have become corrupt and turned on its own people. We're supposed to have a weak central government that is divided into three parts to prevent that from happening.

For the last 80 years we've been taking steps away from personal responsibility and liberty for the sake of "doing something for the greater good" all the while we are dismantling what we've got bit by bit. All of those pie-in-the-sky ideas may sound good and many countries may be able to successfully incoporate socialistic ideas into their system. But there's a risk and the question is are we willing to take it?

For the life of me I can't understand how people can look at the private sector and shout "greed and corruption" yet feel totally comfortable giving other people power over their own lives because it's "fair" Human nature is what it is... whether you're in the private or public sector. The difference is that one system severly limits the power those people have over others and the other system says "sure - here's the keys. Drive"

 

[dragonfliet]

are you serious? how the hell does the commerce clause cover someone going to their local doctor. it doesn't. we've been through this before. if it did, then EVERY service or thing you buy would also be covered by the CC.

Le sigh. I know we went over this. Since health insurance is an interstate commerce (and even in the instances where it is intrastate, it affects the interstate market, or COULD become interstate), congress has the ability to regulate it. Gonzales v Raich and Wickard v Filburn are gonna be the cases to look at on that one. Also-yeah, every service or thing is covered by the commerce clause. EVEN FOOD YOU GROW FOR YOURSELF. You don't have to like it, but it's true.

...I merely asked where did we have pure capitalism unchecked without any government or other internal regulation or oversight? What we had was hardly capitalism run amok, but more like mismanagement at its worst on all accounts.

It was both. It was stupid mismanagement AND a result of a system of deregulation. With regulation, the situation wouldn't have been able to progress as it did. I'm not saying capitalism is terrible or that it equals greed necessarily. I'm simply saying that much of capitalism operates on the concept of greed and that it needs to be regulated. We didn't regulate like we should have, and we got screwed.

~Jason

 

[TWD]

Le sigh. I know we went over this. Since health insurance is an interstate commerce (and even in the instances where it is intrastate, it affects the interstate market, or COULD become interstate), congress has the ability to regulate it. Gonzales v Raich and Wickard v Filburn are gonna be the cases to look at on that one. Also-yeah, every service or thing is covered by the commerce clause. EVEN FOOD YOU GROW FOR YOURSELF. You don't have to like it, but it's true.

Sorry, but I still fail to understand how the commerce clause makes it possible to allow the government to FORCE me to buy insurance or suffer a fine. All you have done is proven that it allows the government to regulate insurance.

 

[N1ghtmare]

We're supposed to have a weak central government

No, this isn't a confederation.

--------------------------------------------------------------

On another note I have personally seen more abuses of personal freedom committed by the states than our national government.

 

[dragonfliet]

Sorry, but I still fail to understand how the commerce clause makes it possible to allow the government to FORCE me to buy insurance or suffer a fine. All you have done is proven that it allows the government to regulate insurance.

The same way they can force you to buy grain instead of eating your own. By choosing whether or not you'll opt in to an insurance plan, you are having and effect on interstate commerce and since the federal government gets to control that, they get to say you can be forced to have it. This is actually less prohibitive than the government being able to tell you that you can't eat the food you grow.

~Jason

 

[kiff]

Le sigh. I know we went over this. Since health insurance is an interstate commerce (and even in the instances where it is intrastate, it affects the interstate market, or COULD become interstate), congress has the ability to regulate it. Gonzales v Raich and Wickard v Filburn are gonna be the cases to look at on that one. Also-yeah, every service or thing is covered by the commerce clause. EVEN FOOD YOU GROW FOR YOURSELF. You don't have to like it, but it's true.

All that ruling means is that the SC perverted the constitution. it should be clear as day that the founders never had that intention or there would be absolutely no purpose for federalism or the CC. look at my sig and the other citations I've posted in the past and it there's no doubt that the SC has made unconstitutional rulings and made loopholes. that's all

 

[Zxanphorian]

Haha kiff, you really don't know the history about the Founding Fathers. You assume that all of the FF's were of the Democratic-Republican line of thinking. The Democratic-Republicans were essentially anti-federal government, pro state government, a strictly-formed Constitution and the like. The Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton), on the other hand, believed in a strong federal government, and a flexible constitution. They also believed that the federal government could enact laws and impose them on the states if it was necessary and proper. Although people can argue that it is unconstitutional (mainly the Democratic-Republicans cried out about this) but it can help better the society as a whole, the specific law can be passed. Federalism, the CC, the Federal Bank/Reserve, even the Public option in the Health Care debate can all be saw as necessary and proper.

And about the Supreme Court. In the beginning, we had no clue what the Supreme Court would compose of, what it really was supposed to do, and what scope it would have, besides what was explicitly said in the Constitution. We knew more what the lesser courts would be made of. As time went on, it became more apparent that it would determine what is constitutional and unconstitutional. We wouldn't need a heavily influential Supreme Court if our constitution wasn't relatively flexible. It is because of it's flexibility, these constitutional vs. unconstitutional debates rage on, and there can be no "correct" answer to some problems.

Anyway, arguments that we are "supposed" to have a weak central, federal, etc government, or the powers of our federal government are "unconstitutional" today, are complete bunk. The Constitution wasn't written with exactly one school of thought, it was written with many schools of thought (Democratic-Republicans, Federalists, etc). It is interesting that back towards our conception, the atmosphere was way more partisan than today. It was actually encouraged by everybody to become extremely more radical than they were before. Also pretty much all the news back then had an extreme political spin, especially on pamphlets given out from political parties.

 

[kiff]

Haha kiff, you really don't know the history about the Founding Fathers. You assume that all of the FF's were of the Democratic-Republican line of thinking. The Democratic-Republicans were essentially anti-federal government, pro state government, a strictly-formed Constitution and the like. The Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton), on the other hand, believed in a strong federal government, and a flexible constitution. They also believed that the federal government could enact laws and impose them on the states if it was necessary and proper. Although people can argue that it is unconstitutional (mainly the Democratic-Republicans cried out about this) but it can help better the society as a whole, the specific law can be passed. Federalism, the CC, the Federal Bank/Reserve, even the Public option in the Health Care debate can all be saw as necessary and proper.

lol ok...
yea, hamilton and even madison (to a degree) wanted the federal government to have more power, but that's not what they finally agreed upon and SIGNED AS THE CONSTITUTION.

"federal government could enact laws and impose them on the states if it was necessary and proper"... by amendments to the constitution, not by unconstitutional laws

Umm, necessary and proper? that's great stuff...

"This specification of particulars (enumerated powers) evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Hamilton

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - Madison

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Jefferson

 

[TWD]

The same way they can force you to buy grain instead of eating your own. By choosing whether or not you'll opt in to an insurance plan, you are having and effect on interstate commerce and since the federal government gets to control that, they get to say you can be forced to have it. This is actually less prohibitive than the government being able to tell you that you can't eat the food you grow.

~Jason

It's totally different. One is regulating the production of a product. One is forcing you to buy a product simply because you're alive. The court cases that you have named have absolutely no bearing on the constitutionality of a health insurance mandate.

 

[dragonfliet]

It's totally different. One is regulating the production of a product. One is forcing you to buy a product simply because you're alive. The court cases that you have named have absolutely no bearing on the constitutionality of a health insurance mandate.

It's only very slightly different. It is regulating a service (which counts as commerce) and if you don't see how mandating healthcare relates to production of a product (here's a hint: they're both bringing in money), then I can't help you. For further thoughts, I'll let some random professor from the internet (okay, so he's the Dean of law at UC Irvine) say it for me

Congress can require the purchase of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine this.

~Jason

 

[Larkin]

The commerce clause was for the first century of our history, the primary use was to preclude discriminatory state legislation against other states. That would only fundamentally change by the acts/cases of the new deal and acts/cases thereafter.

The question is should we go with its orginal use and meaning or go with the new "unlimited power" approach that has existed since only the 1930's.

 

[hal]

No, this isn't a confederation.

No ****. I didn't say it was.

Anyway, arguments that we are "supposed" to have a weak central, federal, etc government... are complete bunk. The Constitution wasn't written with exactly one school of thought,

Yet look at how it's structured. By weak I don't mean impotent, but rather limited.

 

[Phopojijo]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the leader of the USA... given all the talk about having weak federal powers... is structured around a presidential system?

 

[hal]

It's not all about the President. There are three "independent" and equal branches of government. The Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches. The President gets a lot of attention because he has tremendous power over the Executive branch, is the Commander In Chief, and is sort of the "face" of government.

 

[Zxanphorian]

And he is also the scapegoat for what goes wrong in the country.

 

[Phopojijo]

It's not all about the President. There are three "independent" and equal branches of government. The Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches. The President gets a lot of attention because he has tremendous power over the Executive branch, is the Commander In Chief, and is sort of the "face" of government.

I understand the second sentence... and the third sentence is kind-of important...

 

[Sir_Brizz]

That doesn't give him unlimited power, though. In fact, other than veto power, the President doesn't have a ton of direct authoritative control.

 

[hal]

And he is also the scapegoat for what goes wrong in the country.

No doubt about it.