Anyone that has any intention of being intellectually honest, understands federalism and the enumerated powers would agree that it's unconstitutional. But some would rather attempt to use loopholes (citing SC rulings) to bend the constitution to their agenda. It's really that simple.
You see, this is where you are deluding yourself. You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Neither does the president, neither does congress. Only the supreme court gets to decide. Whether they be right or wrong (morally, ethically, whatever), their decision says what is and is not constitutional.
You say that anyone with "any intention of being intellectually honest...would agree that it's unconstitutional." Well, being relatively educated, understanding both the history of my country, having read way too many examples of court cases regarding the constitution and being very pragmatic and reasonable: I disagree that it is unconstitutional.
Here is a better example. Anyone who has any intention of being intellectually honest, understands federalism and the enumerated powers, would agree that the constitution can be translated any number of ways and it is easy to see why some people would disagree whether or not it should lean to the left or to the right, as it is rather vague in many parts. Further, they should understand that their translation means squat because the SC decides which is which, no matter how much they like it. When SC history leans towards a certain concept, no matter how much they disagree with it, chances are, they're gonna continue leaning that way.
Stop pretending that people that agree with you are the only reasonable (or intellectually honest) people out there. It is obvious to me that health care is constitutional and I've been looking up cases for hours upon hours of late and thinking about whether or not there seems to be the case against it. According to you, I'm deluding myself to twist the constitution to my agenda. You, however, don't seem to understand the difference between opinion (as translating somethng always is) and fact. Just because it's clear to you doesn't make it so.
Well we can't rewrite history. I just think it's a given that this is going to get challenged in court. The discussion is growing by the day, and I wouldn't even be surprised if that's what finally ends up killing the bill.
SC won't hear something until it is already in effect. So the bill would have to be passed and then someone would have to challenge it in court, then appeal it through the district and appellate courts, etc. all the way up to the SC. Given their history of rulings and current composition, do you REALLY think the SC would strike down the health care bill? I don't even think it's close and would bet money it would be a 7-2 or maybe a 6-3 ruling.
Back on topic. Here's
another example of why Fox isn't being treated as an even slightly impartial (or 'real') news organization. Again, courtesy of The Daily Show. If you guys would like, I could post a different source, but TDS is funny and anyone that points out how off the mark fox is is going to be (be default) a very biased source. I'm sure you'd prefer this to, say, huffington or some other crazed liberal.
~Jason
