Is The Administration's Medical Insurance Plan Constitutional?
Anarcissie
Administration's current medical insurance plan as
it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
insurance from private insurers. However, there
does not seem to be any Constituional provision
empowering the Federal government to compel
one class of private citizens to give money to another.
Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
that less-wealthy people give their money to
more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
speaking. I suppose the Court's recent decision with
respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
courts decided it was all right for state and local
governments to take property away from private
persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
I expect some sort of legal argument to be
constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
know if there are any sketches of it making the
rounds yet.
Phlip
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers.
You understand wrong. Stop listening to HMO lobbyists. If you don't
want to pay, you might get inferior service, but you
_won't_go_bankrupt_.
BTW, the front page of todays NYTimes sez that the last round of
speeches in congress were _written_ by the lobbyists. Congress (and
most of the MSM) is nothing more than their puppets these days.
Escape the cult, dude!
Anarcissie
<21a17a92-ab37-42e1...@z3g2000prd.google
groups.com>,
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
I said nothing about anyone going bankrupt. I was
merely asking how the present bill would be justified
Constitutionally, for the reasons I gave.
Deadrat
33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were curious,
you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
> As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers. However, there
> does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> empowering the Federal government to compel
> one class of private citizens to give money to another.
What do you think taxation is?
> Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> that less-wealthy people give their money to
> more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> speaking.
Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
> I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> courts decided it was all right for state and local
> governments to take property away from private
> persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of the
cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London,
545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal government could not
determine the extent of a state's eminent domain rules, but that it was
up to the states' constitutions.
> The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
> for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
> strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
> I expect some sort of legal argument to be
> constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
> know if there are any sketches of it making the
> rounds yet.
Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
(2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the power
to reform health insurance laws.
Anarcissie
<u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
>
> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were curious,
> you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
you have far more talent for it than you have showed
thus far.
> > As I
> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> > empowering the Federal government to compel
> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>
> What do you think taxation is?
Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
to the government, not to other private individuals or
groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
out, but then, this is Usenet.
> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> > speaking.
>
> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
doing nothing, for example.
> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
> > governments to take property away from private
> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>
> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of the
> cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London,
> 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal government could not
> determine the extent of a state's eminent domain rules, but that it was
> up to the states' constitutions.
LIke I said.
> > The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
> > for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
> > strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
> > I expect some sort of legal argument to be
> > constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
> > know if there are any sketches of it making the
> > rounds yet.
>
> Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
> (2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the power
> to reform health insurance laws.
Both of these decisions, especially the latter, are
grotesque violations of reason and common sense which
I have no doubt the present Supreme Court will follow
in spirit. However, I am curious as to the particular
gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
performed in this particular case. There are some
differences: in both cases given above, the people
involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
at least potentially commercial activity which the
government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
because a person is breathing -- they need not be
engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
those already established, will it not?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far in
>> Congress.
>
> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were curious,
> you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
>
>> As I
>> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical insurance from
>> private insurers. However, there does not seem to be any Constituional
>> provision empowering the Federal government to compel one class of
>> private citizens to give money to another.
>
> What do you think taxation is?
He's talking about something different. If no public option is
available, but the mandate coverage, then they would be enforcing a
demand that people do business with a private party. That might be
unconstitutional.
If there's a public option, they can simply tax. That's not a problem.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
>> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
>> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
>> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
>>
>> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were
>> curious, you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US
>> legal history.
>
> I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
> you have far more talent for it than you have showed
> thus far.
This is a fair point. I shouldn't have assumed; I should have asked, and
I will correct myself now:
Aren't you really just pissed off about it and masking your irritation
with a claim of curiosity? Because, if you were really just curious,
wouldn't you have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal
history?
>> > As I
>> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
>> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>> > empowering the Federal government to compel
>> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>>
>> What do you think taxation is?
>
> Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
> to the government, not to other private individuals or
> groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
> out, but then, this is Usenet.
Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money first to
the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So the result is
the same.
>> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
>> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>> > speaking.
>>
>> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
>
>
> The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
> could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
> doing nothing, for example.
But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out and
about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of getting
sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it affects the
entire economy.
You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing, so
paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been decided.
>> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
>> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
>> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
>> > governments to take property away from private
>> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
>> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>>
>> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of
>> the cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New
>> London, 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal
>> government could not determine the extent of a state's eminent domain
>> rules, but that it was up to the states' constitutions.
>
> LIke I said.
Hardly. The Supreme Court didn't approve of states taking private
property to give to individuals. It said that whether this was proper
was up to the states under their own constitutions.
Do you really not understand the difference? Look up "federalist
system."
>> > The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
>> > for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
>> > strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
>> > I expect some sort of legal argument to be
>> > constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
>> > know if there are any sketches of it making the
>> > rounds yet.
>>
>> Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
>> (2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the
>> power to reform health insurance laws.
>
> Both of these decisions, especially the latter, are
> grotesque violations of reason and common sense which
> I have no doubt the present Supreme Court will follow
> in spirit.
Your opinion is noted. It's still the law.
> However, I am curious as to the particular
> gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
> performed in this particular case. There are some
> differences: in both cases given above, the people
> involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
> at least potentially commercial activity which the
> government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
> if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
> because a person is breathing -- they need not be
> engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
> whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
> those already established, will it not?
Supposing this gets to the Supreme Court, the gov will have to
demonstrate 1) that the law is necessary and proper to carrying out the
gov's duties, and 2) that regulating health insurance is pursuant to
regulating interstate commerce. Given the height of the bar for what
constitutes interstate commerce, this should be a slam dunk.
One word for ya: pandemic.
Deadrat
news:iKCdnYr-SMHy-p3W...@posted.carinet:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:12:25 -0600, Deadrat wrote:
>
>> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
>> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
>>> in Congress.
>>
>> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were
>> curious, you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US
>> legal history.
>>
>>> As I
>>> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical insurance
>>> from private insurers. However, there does not seem to be any
>>> Constituional provision empowering the Federal government to compel
>>> one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>>
>> What do you think taxation is?
>
> He's talking about something different. If no public option is
> available, but the mandate coverage, then they would be enforcing a
> demand that people do business with a private party. That might be
> unconstitutional.
Do you have to buy auto insurance? Do you get if from a "private party"?
> If there's a public option, they can simply tax. That's not a
> problem.
This is a distinction without a difference. They can tax you the same
amount and give you a credit for your premiums. Does that make you feel
better?
<snip/>
Anarcissie
<_uOdnfVwA49P753W...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > In article
> > <u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
> > Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
> >> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
> >>
> >> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> >> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> >> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
> >>
> >> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were
> >> curious, you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US
> >> legal history.
> >
> > I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
> > you have far more talent for it than you have showed
> > thus far.
>
> This is a fair point. I shouldn't have assumed; I should have asked, and
> I will correct myself now:
>
> Aren't you really just pissed off about it and masking your irritation
> with a claim of curiosity? Because, if you were really just curious,
> wouldn't you have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal
> history?
I looked around a bit and didn't see anything. To some
extent I don't know what to look for, even with Google
and Wikipedia at hand. So I've come to the fount of
wisdom that is Usenet, knowing in advance that I would
be disparaged for not already knowing the answer to my
question, which is of course the default procedure
here. But at least you seem to understand what the
question is, and why someone might ask it. I'm not
pissed off about it at all -- I have long since grown
used to corruption, iniquity and unreason in government
and find it more a source of humor than anger. Except
of course when it's my ox that's gored, which isn't
happening in this case. Yet.
> >> > As I
> >> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> >> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
> >> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> >> > empowering the Federal government to compel
> >> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
> >>
> >> What do you think taxation is?
> >
> > Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
> > to the government, not to other private individuals or
> > groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
> > out, but then, this is Usenet.
>
> Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money first to
> the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So the result is
> the same.
Yes, but the Constitution among other things is about
correct procedure. The Constitution says the
government can tax, and that it can spend money, but as
it's written it does not seem to authorize it to compel
payments from one private party to another.
> >> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> >> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> >> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
> >> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> >> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> >> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> >> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> >> > speaking.
> >>
> >> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
> >
> >
> > The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
> > could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
> > doing nothing, for example.
>
> But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out and
> about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of getting
> sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it affects the
> entire economy.
We don't know what they're doing, actually. Some
people engage in very, very little economic activity.
> You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing, so
> paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been decided.
No, Social Security is based on income or employment.
It's quite different. The medical insurance thing
seems more like a head tax -- but it's not actually a
tax. I'm sure it would be Constitutional for the
government to tax people with incomes or jobs
and appropriate the money to some sort of
medical-insurance agency like Medicare, but this is
different, because it's in effect a head tax and
because the receiver of the payment is a
private party.
> >> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> >> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> >> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
> >> > governments to take property away from private
> >> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> >> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
> >>
> >> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of
> >> the cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New
> >> London, 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal
> >> government could not determine the extent of a state's eminent domain
> >> rules, but that it was up to the states' constitutions.
> >
> > LIke I said.
>
> Hardly. The Supreme Court didn't approve of states taking private
> property to give to individuals. It said that whether this was proper
> was up to the states under their own constitutions.
>
> Do you really not understand the difference? Look up "federalist
> system."
I understand that the Supreme Court said it was up to
the states. The constitution of a state is "up to" the
state as are its laws and its exercises of eminent
domain. Therefore, in the view of the Supreme Court,
it was "all right for state and local governments to
take property away from private persons ... to benefit
other private persons", as I said. I assumed that we
were talking about actions which were legal and
constitutional with respect to the state's constitution
and laws -- otherwise the issue would not have been
brought before the Supreme Court.
I am sure no one would disagree that the Constitution
empowers Congress to pass laws regulating interstate
commerce in medical insurance. What I'm curious about
is how _everyone_ can be compelled to buy the
insurance, which is quite a different question. Public
health issues are also a different subject.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-E3E21...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <_uOdnfVwA49P753W...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
<snip/>
>> >> > As I
>> >> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>> >> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
>> >> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>> >> > empowering the Federal government to compel
>> >> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think taxation is?
>> >
>> > Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
>> > to the government, not to other private individuals or
>> > groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
>> > out, but then, this is Usenet.
>>
>> Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money
>> first to the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So
>> the result is the same.
>
> Yes, but the Constitution among other things is about
> correct procedure.
Actually, the Constitution isn't much about procedure at all. Procedures
are specified in the Constitution to
1. Make laws.
2. Elect and impeach the President.
3. Make oaths of office.
3. Ratify and amend the Constitution itself.
Most procedural questions are left up to Congress and the states. No
judicial procedures whatsoever are specified.
The Constitution is mainly about the laying out of powers and
restrictions on those powers.
> The Constitution says the
> government can tax, and that it can spend money, but as
> it's written it does not seem to authorize it to compel
> payments from one private party to another.
It doesn't specifically authorize an air force.
It doesn't specifically empower Congress to pass laws forbidding
discrimination in public accommodations.
It doesn't specifically say all that much. But it generally lays out the
areas of operation of the federal government.
>> >> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>> >> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>> >> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
>> >> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>> >> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>> >> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>> >> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>> >> > speaking.
>> >>
>> >> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
>> >
>> >
>> > The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
>> > could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
>> > doing nothing, for example.
>>
>> But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out
>> and about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of
>> getting sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it
>> affects the entire economy.
>
> We don't know what they're doing, actually. Some
> people engage in very, very little economic activity.
>
>> You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing,
>> so paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been
>> decided.
>
> No, Social Security is based on income or employment.
Or disability.
> It's quite different.
So what? Do you find anything specifically mentioned in the Constitution
about forcing people to pay taxes for retirement insurance?
> The medical insurance thing seems more like a head tax
which is perfectly legal
> --but it's not actually a
> tax. I'm sure it would be Constitutional for the
> government to tax people with incomes or jobs
> and appropriate the money to some sort of
> medical-insurance agency like Medicare, but this is
> different, because it's in effect a head tax and
> because the receiver of the payment is a private party.
So what?
No, the Supreme Court did not rule on what was legal with respect to the
states' constitutions. The Supreme Court does not decide whether a
state's action is in accord with the state's constitution. The Supreme
Court decides whether a state action is in accord with the national
Constitution. The Supreme Court declined to make a national rule and
left the legality of the states' actions to the states.
This may be a distinction without a difference for you.
<snip/>
>> > However, I am curious as to the particular
>> > gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
>> > performed in this particular case. There are some
>> > differences: in both cases given above, the people
>> > involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
>> > at least potentially commercial activity which the
>> > government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
>> > if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
>> > because a person is breathing -- they need not be
>> > engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
>> > whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
>> > those already established, will it not?
>>
>> Supposing this gets to the Supreme Court, the gov will have to
>> demonstrate 1) that the law is necessary and proper to carrying out
>> the gov's duties, and 2) that regulating health insurance is pursuant
>> to regulating interstate commerce. Given the height of the bar for
>> what constitutes interstate commerce, this should be a slam dunk.
>>
>> One word for ya: pandemic.
>
> I am sure no one would disagree that the Constitution
> empowers Congress to pass laws regulating interstate
> commerce in medical insurance.
Then we're done.
> What I'm curious about
> is how _everyone_ can be compelled to buy the
> insurance, which is quite a different question.
I think everyone will be required to have insurance. Some folks will be
unable to buy it.
> Public health issues are also a different subject.
Public health issues as they affect the economy are exactly what the gov
will rely on to show that their actions are necessary, proper, and within
the scope of the commerce clause.
Of course, the Supreme Court could prove me wrong.
Phlip
> (2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the power
> to reform health insurance laws.
If they had the power to screw insurance up, at the behest of
lobbyists, then they certainly have the power to fix it, for their
constitutionally recognized constituents.
Or maybe - answering the subject line - we are also not authorized to
operate an Air Force, an FCC, a CIA, a DHS, an SEC, Amtrak, NASA,
etc...
*Anarcissie*
http://tinyurl.com/b6vdz3
Irrelevant here, but interesting.
Dänk 1010011010
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers. However, there
> does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> empowering the Federal government to compel
> one class of private citizens to give money to another.
Of course national health care is unconstitutional, but so is Social
Security, Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and countless other federal
programs.
The Republicans who once wiped their asses with the Constitution when
they were in power have suddenly discovered the importance of checks
and balances now that they are out of power, and are suddenly
concerned that universal health care may exceed the federal
government's chartered powers.
But Republicans opposition to national health care is purely
reactionary and not rooted in any particular ideological principle,
since the party has no consistent ideology except right-wing populism
and corruption.
The Republicans claim that not only is national health care an
unconstitutional exercise of federal power, but that forcing Americans
to purchase insurance is also unconstitutional. But Social Security
remains constitutional, and Republicans recently attempted to
privatize Social Security - where Americans would be required to
invest in private pension plans, preferably exotic mortgage securities
with high yields.
Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
purchase of private health insurance is not.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
> purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
> purchase of private health insurance is not.
I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
which surprised me. In Helvering v. Davis, which
established the constitutionality of Social Security,
the taxing part of the plan and the provision for
payout were carefully separated; the tax is
nominally for the "general welfare" and the payout
is just something Congress happens to be doing
with the Treasury's money, as it is empowered to
do in the Constitution. It is certainly not a
compelled payment to a private party, which
is what the present medical insurance proposal
looks like to me. Hence my question about it.
Dan Clore
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
> in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
> medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
> seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
> another.
Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
convinced that this is unconstitutional.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Deadrat
news:7mn0fcF...@mid.individual.net:
> Anarcissie wrote:
>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
>> in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
>> medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
>> seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
>> another.
>
> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>
> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
> Glenn Beck,
There are drugs that can help.
> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now convinced that
> this is unconstitutional.
From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I find
that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for which one
on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre prose poem[,]" while
another finds your misanthropy refreshing. (The latter unfortunately
goes on to compare you to the "darkest satirists of the past two
millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose Bierce in the company of
Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
The second reviewer notes that "The idea that we are required to extend
benevolence to human beings merely because they are human beings is one
of the deepest and most irrational prejudices in human thought." Would
you agree? If so, I fear for the soundness of your opinions on the
Constitution, which after all, is based on the political philosophy that
rights accrue to humans as a result of their humanity and which is set up
to protect those rights.
What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you dispute? Those
dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause? The necessary and
proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be right.
Enlighten me. Be specific; show your work.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> > current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
> > in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
> > medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
> > seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> > government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
> > another.
>
> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>
> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
> Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce
clause cannot justify fining people who are not doing any
commerce without some kind of very elaborate rationale
which MM neglected to provide. It rather lowered my
opinion of Media Matters.
Deadrat
news:fa8af36b-0aeb-4bc2...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 20, 2:55�am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Anarcissie wrote:
>> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>> > current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
>> > in Congress. �As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
>> > medical insurance from private insurers. �However, there does not
>> > seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>> > government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
>> > another.
>>
>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>
>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
>> Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>
> Yes, that was a very weak article.
I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion if you had some evidence to go with
it.
> Clearly, the commerce
> clause cannot justify fining people who are not doing any
> commerce
Clearly? The only thing clear is that you have an unsupported opinion.
Read the relevant opinions, Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich, to
get an informed view of the scope of power the Supreme Court has allowed
the gov in the regulation of interstate commerce. The
interpretation of the commerce clause doesn't rely on merely examining
the effect of laws on individuals but their effect on interstate
commerce.
> without some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to
> provide.
And the rationale, which is indeed quite elaborate, is contained in the
Supreme Court cases I recommended to you.
> It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
Mote. Beam. Your eye.
Dan Clore
Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
doesn't pass the laugh test. The case of an individual growing marijuana
for personal medicinal use shows the argument at its most utter
absurdity, as in that case there is no commerce involved, nor any
interstate activity. Well, I guess that means that this individual did
not purchase marijuana from another state, and thereby affected
interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect
inststate commerce by affecting the individuals other purchases --
tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs,
and the like, which involve items from other states.
Dan Clore
[Please make note if you set follow-ups. I almost didn't notice that
this wouldn't be posted to alt.anarchism, the newsgroup where I'm
posting from.--DC]
Deadrat wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in
> news:7mn0fcF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
>>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
>>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
>>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
>>> to another.
>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>
>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
>> with Glenn Beck,
>
> There are drugs that can help.
Please send a year's supply immediately.
>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now convinced
>> that this is unconstitutional.
>
> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I find
> that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for which
> one on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre prose
> poem[,]" while another finds your misanthropy refreshing. (The
> latter unfortunately goes on to compare you to the "darkest satirists
> of the past two millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose
> Bierce in the company of Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
What is "unfortunate" about this?
> The second reviewer notes that "The idea that we are required to
> extend benevolence to human beings merely because they are human
> beings is one of the deepest and most irrational prejudices in human
> thought." Would you agree? If so, I fear for the soundness of your
> opinions on the Constitution, which after all, is based on the
> political philosophy that rights accrue to humans as a result of
> their humanity and which is set up to protect those rights.
Why, of course I don't agree. When confronted with such fine specimens
of humanity as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto, Pinochet, George
W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney, Saddam Hussein, the
freecreditreport.com guy, Smilin' Bob, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and so
on and so forth, one can only respond with gushing empathy and love,
love, love in slop buckets.
> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
> experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you dispute?
> Those dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause? The
> necessary and proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
>
> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be
> right.
What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2:55 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>>>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
>>>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
>>>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
>>>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>>>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
>>>> to another.
>>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>>
>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>>
>>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
>>> with Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am
>>> now convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>
>> Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce clause
>> cannot justify fining people who are not doing any commerce without
>> some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to provide.
>> It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
>
> Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
> also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
> conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
> doesn't pass the laugh test.
This isn't my "claim," and there is no "laugh test" that matters to the
law. It's what the Supreme Court says. Now, you may disagree with
Court, but max nixt.
> The case of an individual growing marijuana
> for personal medicinal use shows the argument at its most utter
> absurdity, as in that case there is no commerce involved, nor any
> interstate activity. Well, I guess that means that this individual did
> not purchase marijuana from another state, and thereby affected
> interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect
> inststate commerce by affecting the individuals other purchases --
> tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs,
> and the like, which involve items from other states.
I have no idea what this rant means. You claim that you were convinced
that the current health care bills are unconstitutional. If you meant
that you could demonstrate this under the current interpretation of the
commerce clause, then I'm willing to listen to your argument. If, on the
other hand, you merely meant that you disagree with the state of the law,
then please post instead to alt.who.gives.a.shit.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
>
> [Please make note if you set follow-ups. I almost didn't notice that
> this wouldn't be posted to alt.anarchism, the newsgroup where I'm
> posting from.--DC]
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in
>> news:7mn0fcF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>>>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
>>>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
>>>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
>>>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>>>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
>>>> to another.
>>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>>
>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>>
>>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
>>> with Glenn Beck,
>>
>> There are drugs that can help.
>
> Please send a year's supply immediately.
Alas, I am not licensed to prescribe. Your friendly local psychiatrist
has a number of psychotropics that may interest you and which he will
gladly dispense for the price of your friendly local co-pay.
>>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now convinced
>>> that this is unconstitutional.
>>
>> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I find
>> that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for which
>> one on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre prose
>> poem[,]" while another finds your misanthropy refreshing. (The
>> latter unfortunately goes on to compare you to the "darkest satirists
>> of the past two millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose
>> Bierce in the company of Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
>
> What is "unfortunate" about this?
Sorta like being compared to the "greatest humorists of all time,
including Mark Twain and Benny Hill." But I suppose you take your
glowing reviews were you find them.
>> The second reviewer notes that "The idea that we are required to
>> extend benevolence to human beings merely because they are human
>> beings is one of the deepest and most irrational prejudices in human
>> thought." Would you agree? If so, I fear for the soundness of your
>> opinions on the Constitution, which after all, is based on the
>> political philosophy that rights accrue to humans as a result of
>> their humanity and which is set up to protect those rights.
>
> Why, of course I don't agree. When confronted with such fine specimens
> of humanity as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto, Pinochet, George
> W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney, Saddam Hussein, the
> freecreditreport.com guy, Smilin' Bob, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and so
> on and so forth, one can only respond with gushing empathy and love,
> love, love in slop buckets.
You don't agree with what? That our system is based on the universality
of inherent human rights?
And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put him in the
same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
>> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
>> experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you dispute?
>> Those dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause? The
>> necessary and proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
>>
>> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be
>> right.
>
> What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
Did I write that out loud? I'm sorry, I meant that experts might be
wrong, and a master of the macabre prose poem might be right.
Anarcissie
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:55 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Anarcissie wrote:
> >>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> >>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
> >>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
> >>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
> >>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> >>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
> >>> to another.
> >> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
> >>
> >> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
> >>
> >> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
> >> with Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am
> >> now convinced that this is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce clause
> > cannot justify fining people who are not doing any commerce without
> > some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to provide.
> > It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
>
> Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
> also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
> conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
> doesn't pass the laugh test.
I think, though, that that is pretty much what Deadrat
is saying, and as far as the Supreme Court goes he or
she may have a point. For example, among the cases
recommended to me was the one in which the Federal
government successfully claimed that it had a right to
limit the amount a wheat grown by a farmer even though
the farmer was feeding all of it to his chickens and
was therefore not engaging in interstate commerce with
it. The Federal government claimed that this meant he
would buy less wheat, thereby affecting interstate
commerce. This is absurd, but it's settled law. As
you notice below, _Gonzales_ is also absurd, but it,
too, is the law. In short, as far as the Supreme
Court is concerned, the Federal legislature can pass
any law about anything and make it stick. This nicely
resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
What I think this boils down to is a view that the
Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
Alberto Gonzales. This is probably what Media Matters
should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
any surprise to any of us.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-2FC52...@reader1.panix.com:
This is simply absurd and it's not even true of laws concerning
interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that gun possession in and
of itself does not affect interstate commerce and overturned a federal
law restricting carrying guns in school zones. When Congress tried to
federalize rape, the Supreme Court again intervened, ignoring
Congressional findings about the effect of violence on women traveling
between states.
> This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
> What I think this boils down to is a view that the
> Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
> Alberto Gonzales.
That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make it
a waste.
> This is probably what Media Matters
> should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
> any surprise to any of us.
What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
Anarcissie
<k_2dnVqCyJar3prW...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> indirect, doesn't pass the laugh test. ...
> >
> > I think, though, that that is pretty much what Deadrat
> > is saying, and as far as the Supreme Court goes he or
> > she may have a point. For example, among the cases
> > recommended to me was the one in which the Federal
> > government successfully claimed that it had a right to
> > limit the amount a wheat grown by a farmer even though
> > the farmer was feeding all of it to his chickens and
> > was therefore not engaging in interstate commerce with
> > it. The Federal government claimed that this meant he
> > would buy less wheat, thereby affecting interstate
> > commerce. This is absurd, but it's settled law. As
> > you notice below, _Gonzales_ is also absurd, but it,
> > too, is the law. In short, as far as the Supreme
> > Court is concerned, the Federal legislature can pass
> > any law about anything and make it stick.
>
> This is simply absurd and it's not even true of laws concerning
> interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that gun possession in and
> of itself does not affect interstate commerce and overturned a federal
> law restricting carrying guns in school zones. When Congress tried to
> federalize rape, the Supreme Court again intervened, ignoring
> Congressional findings about the effect of violence on women traveling
> between states.
You are right; a finer distinction has to be drawn
between one set of absurdities and another. Clearly,
_Wickard_v_Filburn_ and _Gonzales_v_Raich_ are patently
absurd, as are the assertions of Federal power right
above. Yet two passed muster, and two did not.
I confess no immediate taxonomy of the absurd occurs to
me which could sort out the difference. I was going to
say that the rejected laws looked "liberal", but then I
suppose _Wickard_ is also "liberal", so that's not the
difference. So what is the deciding principle? Where
is the line that separates one absurd use of the
commerce clause from another?
>
> > This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
>
> Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
> legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
I said it _resonates_.
> > What I think this boils down to is a view that the
> > Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
> > Alberto Gonzales.
>
> That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make it
> a waste.
>
> > This is probably what Media Matters
> > should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
> > any surprise to any of us.
>
> What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
My ignorance is never a surprise. I know only that I
know nothing, and I rely on people like you, Deadrat,
to set me straight. Now, it certainly appears that
the Constitution is not taken very seriously; it's a
piece of wastepaper, and 18th-century wastepaper at
that. Otherwise we would not see these absurd
extensions of the commerce clause, which really are
pretty ludicrous, I think you must admit. The
question now is how to differentiate between one
absurdity and another in time to determine whether Mr.
O's "health care" bill will be accepted or rejected by
the Court.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-C82F9...@reader1.panix.com:
I think one has to look to the political history of the times. In 1942,
the US was pulling out of the Depression and fighting a war on two
fronts. Both the Battle of Midway and the Battle of Stalingrad were
fought during that year, but it's only in hindsight that historians could
say that these were turning points. It was by no means obvious that the
Allies would win in either theater. Great deference was given to FDR,
who by that time had appointed 8 of the 9 Justices. Such a Court was
unlikely to undermine the economic policies of a wartime President. I
believe the decision was unanimous.
Gonzales v Raich was a 6-3 decision. Given the fault lines, who knows
who was smoking what.
US v Lopez (gun possession) and US v Morrison (Violence Against Women
Act) were 5-4 decisions along ideological lines. Guns mattered to the
majority, and a 1994 Clinton law aimed at a Democratic constituency
didn't.
>> > This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
>>
>> Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
>> legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
>
> I said it _resonates_.
>
>> > What I think this boils down to is a view that the
>> > Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
>> > Alberto Gonzales.
>>
>> That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make
>> it a waste.
>>
>> > This is probably what Media Matters
>> > should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
>> > any surprise to any of us.
>>
>> What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
>
> My ignorance is never a surprise. I know only that I
> know nothing, and I rely on people like you, Deadrat,
> to set me straight.
You're in trouble now, Beav.
> Now, it certainly appears that
> the Constitution is not taken very seriously;
Now you're just funnin' me. The Constitutional mechanics of government
are taken seriously and operate exactly as they're written.
Constitutional protections are taken seriously and that's why the gov
can't use infrared detection devices on your home without a warrant.
> it's a
> piece of wastepaper, and 18th-century wastepaper at
> that. Otherwise we would not see these absurd
> extensions of the commerce clause, which really are
> pretty ludicrous, I think you must admit.
It's pointless to despair because an 18th-century document didn't foresee
economic pattern and practice in the 21st century.
> The
> question now is how to differentiate between one
> absurdity and another in time to determine whether Mr.
> O's "health care" bill will be accepted or rejected by
> the Court.
In the first place, it isn't Obama's "health care" bill; it's a
Congressional health insurance bill. Obama has kept his hands off and
his mouth mostly shut about it.
The Court will do what it wants, of course. And it may decide to throw
off any pretension of consistency, but health insurance regulation is
well within the current boundaries, which as I noted aren't quite absent.
Dan Clore
Exactly. I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of debate with Deadrat, who has
informed me that my opinions don't matter because the government is
forcing different views on us, and I cannot argue from any premises
other than that the Supreme Court's absurd claims are absolutely right
-- and provide protection for our Constitutional rights, to boot.
Personally, I find the "experts" as fallible as any other human being,
even Supreme Court justices:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4079.html
>> The case of an individual growing marijuana for personal medicinal
>> use shows the argument at its most utter absurdity, as in that case
>> there is no commerce involved, nor any interstate activity. Well, I
>> guess that means that this individual did not purchase marijuana
>> from another state, and thereby affected interstate commerce by not
>> engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect inststate commerce by
>> affecting the individuals other purchases -- tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi
>> Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs, and the like, which
>> involve items from other states.
--
Dan Clore
Thanks for the info, but as to the drugs you recommend (and probably
take yourself), I would prefer to avoid the pain in question without
being reduced to a vegetable.
>>>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>>>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I
>>> find that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for
>>> which one on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre
>>> prose poem[,]" while another finds your misanthropy refreshing.
>>> (The latter unfortunately goes on to compare you to the "darkest
>>> satirists of the past two millennia," which to his lights
>>> includes Ambrose Bierce in the company of Juvenal, Swift, and
>>> Schopenhauer.)
>> What is "unfortunate" about this?
>
> Sorta like being compared to the "greatest humorists of all time,
> including Mark Twain and Benny Hill." But I suppose you take your
> glowing reviews were you find them.
Which satirist named above would you compare in quality to Benny Hill?
(I'm just assuming that Benny Hill is the humorist you consider of low
quality, not Mark Twain.)
>>> The second reviewer notes that "The idea that we are required to
>>> extend benevolence to human beings merely because they are human
>>> beings is one of the deepest and most irrational prejudices in
>>> human thought." Would you agree? If so, I fear for the
>>> soundness of your opinions on the Constitution, which after all,
>>> is based on the political philosophy that rights accrue to humans
>>> as a result of their humanity and which is set up to protect
>>> those rights.
>> Why, of course I don't agree. When confronted with such fine
>> specimens of humanity as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto,
>> Pinochet, George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney, Saddam
>> Hussein, the freecreditreport.com guy, Smilin' Bob, Ann Coulter,
>> Glenn Beck, and so on and so forth, one can only respond with
>> gushing empathy and love, love, love in slop buckets.
>
> You don't agree with what?
You asked me above if I agree with a certain statement.
> That our system is based on the
> universality of inherent human rights?
No, I don't agree with that either. The Constitution originally
recognized slavery. That obviously contradicts the political philosophy
that rights accrue to human beings as a result of their humanity.
> And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put him in
> the same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
A satisfied customer, apparently.
>>> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
>>> experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you
>>> dispute? Those dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause?
>>> The necessary and proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th
>>> Amendment?
>>>
>>> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be
>>> right.
>> What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
>
> Did I write that out loud? I'm sorry, I meant that experts might be
> wrong, and a master of the macabre prose poem might be right.
I guess I'll have to remain satisfied with the fact that you called
attention to my work and its critical recognition, which may help
attract readers.
Deadrat
As always, Brave Sir Robin, it's up to you.
> who
> has informed me that my opinions don't matter because the government
> is forcing different views on us, and I cannot argue from any premises
> other than that the Supreme Court's absurd claims are absolutely right
Shall we cue the violins here to join in a swelling and heart-tugging
chorus?
Your opinions don't matter to me because they seem ill-informed and
unsupported by evidence. Why you would care or act upon what I think is
a complete mystery to me.
You won't find me arguing that Supreme Court decisions are "absolutely
right" (whatever that even means), but they are certianly the current
law.
> -- and provide protection for our Constitutional rights, to boot.
Which they do, and which examples I gave you were apparently
unconvincing.
>
> Personally, I find the "experts" as fallible as any other human being,
> even Supreme Court justices:
>
> http://www.nolanchart.com/article4079.html
While experts (or even "experts") may be fallible, they've got nothing on
you. This link is another piece of self-promotion on your part, a column
in which you say
<quote>
Scalia uses the phrases "alien enemies", "enemy aliens", "enemy
combatants", and "enemy prisoners", as if the guilt of those held
prisoner had been established.
</quote>
This refers to Scalia's dissent in Boumediene v Bush. Now, I think
Scalia misses the point, and I agree with the majority in this case, but
it's an example of how a little expertise would inform your opinions.
Scalia is saying that the prisoners are essentially prisoners of war, and
by treaty the making of war by combatants cannot be criminalized. POWs
may be held captive but under humane conditions for the duration of
hostilities. There is no guilt to establish, because there is no crime.
<snip/>
Deadrat
No, whenever I feel down, I come to misc.legal to laugh at the
ignoramuses. And, by the way, thank you.
> I would prefer to avoid the pain in question without being reduced to
> a vegetable.
Would it be too impolite of me to point out that given your apparent
mental state, this wouldn't be much of a change?
>>>>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>>>>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>>> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I
>>>> find that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for
>>>> which one on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre
>>>> prose poem[,]" while another finds your misanthropy refreshing.
>>>> (The latter unfortunately goes on to compare you to the "darkest
>>>> satirists of the past two millennia," which to his lights
>>>> includes Ambrose Bierce in the company of Juvenal, Swift, and
>>>> Schopenhauer.)
>>> What is "unfortunate" about this?
>>
>> Sorta like being compared to the "greatest humorists of all time,
>> including Mark Twain and Benny Hill." But I suppose you take your
>> glowing reviews were you find them.
>
> Which satirist named above would you compare in quality to Benny Hill?
> (I'm just assuming that Benny Hill is the humorist you consider of low
> quality, not Mark Twain.)
That would be Bierce. Whose writing I like, as I'm sure you do as well,
given your Lovecraftian bent. But he's no Swift.
<snip/>
>
[You disagree]
>> That our system is based on the
>> universality of inherent human rights?
>
> No, I don't agree with that either. The Constitution originally
> recognized slavery. That obviously contradicts the political
> philosophy that rights accrue to human beings as a result of their
> humanity.
The Constitution originally permitted slavery, though refusing to
actually use the word. What you've discovered is that the founders
failed to put their philosophy into action. This may have made them
hypocrites, but their legacy allowed us to correct some of their
failures.
>> And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put him in
>> the same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
>
> A satisfied customer, apparently.
I wish. But given what Smilin' Bob's product claims to do, it either
contains extremely dangerous hormone-like compounds or it's a harmless
fraud. In either case, one is better off saving one's money.
>>>> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
>>>> experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you
>>>> dispute? Those dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause?
>>>> The necessary and proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th
>>>> Amendment?
>>>>
>>>> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be
>>>> right.
>>> What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
>>
>> Did I write that out loud? I'm sorry, I meant that experts might be
>> wrong, and a master of the macabre prose poem might be right.
>
> I guess I'll have to remain satisfied with the fact that you called
> attention to my work and its critical recognition, which may help
> attract readers.
Good luck with that.
("Critical recognition." Heh, heh.)
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in
> news:7ms18bF...@mid.individual.net:
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in
>>> news:7mog7sF3j1g06U1 @mid.individual.net:
You're welcome.
"If it's laughing you need, then it's laughing indeed, and it's laughing
at me--"
--Alice Cooper, "Laughing at Me"
>> I would prefer to avoid the pain in question without being reduced
>> to a vegetable.
>
> Would it be too impolite of me to point out that given your apparent
> mental state, this wouldn't be much of a change?
Perhaps.
>>>>>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>>>>>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>>>> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped
>>>>> here), I find that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and
>>>>> Others_, for which one on-line reviewer calls you "a master
>>>>> of the macabre prose poem[,]" while another finds your
>>>>> misanthropy refreshing. (The latter unfortunately goes on to
>>>>> compare you to the "darkest satirists of the past two
>>>>> millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose Bierce in
>>>>> the company of Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
>>>> What is "unfortunate" about this?
>>> Sorta like being compared to the "greatest humorists of all time,
>>> including Mark Twain and Benny Hill." But I suppose you take
>>> your glowing reviews were you find them.
>> Which satirist named above would you compare in quality to Benny
>> Hill? (I'm just assuming that Benny Hill is the humorist you
>> consider of low quality, not Mark Twain.)
>
> That would be Bierce. Whose writing I like, as I'm sure you do as
> well, given your Lovecraftian bent. But he's no Swift.
I do think Bierce belongs in Swift's company, though I wouldn't rank him
as highly as Swift.
> <snip/> [You disagree]
>>> That our system is based on the universality of inherent human
>>> rights?
>> No, I don't agree with that either. The Constitution originally
>> recognized slavery. That obviously contradicts the political
>> philosophy that rights accrue to human beings as a result of their
>> humanity.
>
> The Constitution originally permitted slavery, though refusing to
> actually use the word. What you've discovered is that the founders
> failed to put their philosophy into action. This may have made them
> hypocrites, but their legacy allowed us to correct some of their
> failures.
Yes, we're working on it still.
>>> And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put him
>>> in the same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
>> A satisfied customer, apparently.
>
> I wish. But given what Smilin' Bob's product claims to do, it either
> contains extremely dangerous hormone-like compounds or it's a
> harmless fraud. In either case, one is better off saving one's
> money.
No, it contains a "proprietary blend" of herbs that do things like
improve blood flow. It would probably help you get an erection. If you
need the help--
>>>>> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of
>>>>> Constitutional experts? In particular, which of their
>>>>> arguments do you dispute? Those dismissing concerns based on
>>>>> the commerce clause? The necessary and proper clause? The 5th
>>>>> Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might
>>>>> be right.
>>>> What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
>>> Did I write that out loud? I'm sorry, I meant that experts might
>>> be wrong, and a master of the macabre prose poem might be right.
>> I guess I'll have to remain satisfied with the fact that you called
>> attention to my work and its critical recognition, which may help
>> attract readers.
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> ("Critical recognition." Heh, heh.)
Thanks again.
*Anarcissie*
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote innews:7ms17jF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Anarcissie wrote:
> >> In article <7moersF3igb3...@mid.individual.net>, Dan Clore
Yes. The OP is applying reason to the issue.
However, the Supreme Court is not bound by
reason; its decision in _Gonzales_ is
patently absurd, but it's the law. We can discuss
whether Mr. O's (or the Congressional) "health care
plan" is constitutional as an abstract, academic
issue, and apply reasoning to it, but in fact the
Supreme Court is not necessarily going to apply
reason; as _Gonzales_ shows. I think that sums
up the situation. As I said before, it might be
interesting to guess what sort of rationalizations
they might employ, but it's a very abstract
question.
Of course, this might work against the
Congressional plan as well as for it.
Charles Bell
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:12:25 -0600, Deadrat wrote:
> > 33A58A.12013415112...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> >> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> >> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far in
> >> Congress.
>
> > you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
>
> >> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical insurance from
> >> private insurers. However, there does not seem to be any Constituional
> >> provision empowering the Federal government to compel one class of
> >> private citizens to give money to another.
>
>
> available, but the mandate coverage, then they would be enforcing a
> demand that people do business with a private party. That might be
> unconstitutional.
>
>
Social Security was saved in the Supreme Court by calling it a tax-for-
welfare scheme for some (and not all) employed workers and not a
forced retirement scheme and so it actually has become that in any
case, rather than an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
In the case of mandated health insurance, whether there is a public
option or not, as a condition of breathing, all are required to
participate in a health-insurance Ponzi scheme.
In 1994, reviewing Hillarycare, the Congressional Budget Office noted
that a "mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance
would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has
never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of
lawful residence in the United States."
The only out, in light of Supreme Court precedent, for the the federal
government in its healthcare Ponzi scheme would be to create a single-
payer healthcare program like Britain's NHS -- which may be the long-
term plan of the socialists -- a tax-for-welfare scheme.
Tax-for-welfare schemes are constitutional only because the Supreme
Court says it is, for, as everyone knows, Article I, section 8
General Welfare clause meant that the enumeration of specific powers
to Congress is a meaningless, pointless and just plain stupid idea in
light of the Coming of the One We Have Been Waiting For.
*Anarcissie*
A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
Constitution is irrelevant because the Constitution is
whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme
Court does not proceed by rational analysis of the
Constitution, as _Gonzales_v_Raich shows. If a
person growing marijuana strictly for her own use is
engaging in interstate commerce, then anything
whatever is interstate commerce.
The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
to superficial observation, but it is plain that it does
give much weight to plain reason or common sense.
An assessment of political forces seems more
likely.
Charles Bell
> To summarize:
>
> A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
> Constitution is irrelevant because the Constitution is
> whatever the Supreme Court says it is,
Only because the Supreme Court, not the Constitution, haa declared it
so. The Congress and President can ignore the Supreme Court at any
time, and indeed the people of the U.S. should abolish the Supreme
Court's usurped right of judicial review to nullify Congressional law
on the basis of constitutionality and replace it in a Constitutional
Committee made up of members appointed by the states as well as
abolish the Senate as redundant in this respect.
> The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
> to superficial observation,
Oh, but it is. It is the oligarchy that Jefferson and the original
anti-federalists warned against. Abitrary law by 5 of 9 decision.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
<snip/>
>>> Thanks for the info, but as to the drugs you recommend (and
>>> probably take yourself),
>>
>> No, whenever I feel down, I come to misc.legal to laugh at the
>> ignoramuses. And, by the way, thank you.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> "If it's laughing you need, then it's laughing indeed, and it's
laughing
> at me--"
> --Alice Cooper, "Laughing at Me"
I love all the great philosophers -- Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
Wittgenstein, and Alice Cooper.
>
>>> I would prefer to avoid the pain in question without being reduced
>>> to a vegetable.
>>
>> Would it be too impolite of me to point out that given your apparent
>> mental state, this wouldn't be much of a change?
>
> Perhaps.
Then I won't do it.
>
>>>>>>> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>>>>>>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>>>>> From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped
>>>>>> here), I find that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and
>>>>>> Others_, for which one on-line reviewer calls you "a master
>>>>>> of the macabre prose poem[,]" while another finds your
>>>>>> misanthropy refreshing. (The latter unfortunately goes on to
>>>>>> compare you to the "darkest satirists of the past two
>>>>>> millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose Bierce in
>>>>>> the company of Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
>>>>> What is "unfortunate" about this?
>>>> Sorta like being compared to the "greatest humorists of all time,
>>>> including Mark Twain and Benny Hill." But I suppose you take
>>>> your glowing reviews were you find them.
>>> Which satirist named above would you compare in quality to Benny
>>> Hill? (I'm just assuming that Benny Hill is the humorist you
>>> consider of low quality, not Mark Twain.)
>>
>> That would be Bierce. Whose writing I like, as I'm sure you do as
>> well, given your Lovecraftian bent. But he's no Swift.
>
> I do think Bierce belongs in Swift's company, though I wouldn't rank
> him as highly as Swift.
>
<snip/>
>
>>>> And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put him
>>>> in the same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
>>> A satisfied customer, apparently.
>>
>> I wish. But given what Smilin' Bob's product claims to do, it either
>> contains extremely dangerous hormone-like compounds or it's a
>> harmless fraud. In either case, one is better off saving one's
>> money.
>
> No, it contains a "proprietary blend" of herbs that do things like
> improve blood flow.
If it's "proprietary," then how do you know what the blend is? If you
don't know what's in it, how do you know it improves blood flow?
Assuming that this unspecified "blood flow" is the problem in erectile
dysfunction, how do you know this improvement doesn't have deleterious
side effects on other organ systems? Any peer-reviewed literature? Or
must we rely on testimonials? I don't consider the latter "critical
recognition." YMMV.
> It would probably help you get an erection. If you need the help--
I doubt it. Even if I were male.
>>>>>> What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of
>>>>>> Constitutional experts? In particular, which of their
>>>>>> arguments do you dispute? Those dismissing concerns based on
>>>>>> the commerce clause? The necessary and proper clause? The 5th
>>>>>> Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might
>>>>>> be right.
>>>>> What precisely do you mean by "Lovecraft imitator manque"?
>>>> Did I write that out loud? I'm sorry, I meant that experts might
>>>> be wrong, and a master of the macabre prose poem might be right.
>>> I guess I'll have to remain satisfied with the fact that you called
>>> attention to my work and its critical recognition, which may help
>>> attract readers.
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> ("Critical recognition." Heh, heh.)
>
> Thanks again.
De nada. Literally.
Charles Bell
> On Nov 16, 9:38 pm, Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
> > purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
> > purchase of private health insurance is not.
>
> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one. Even Sen. Snowe somewhere in her
objection to the public opition made the claim of
unconstitutionality. It can be generally taken for granted the
Republicans think of socialized healthcare as unconstitutional, as
they have historically always made that claim, just as it can be taken
for granted that passing unconstitutional legislation is not something
which Congress cares about.
> which surprised me. In Helvering v. Davis, which
> established the constitutionality of Social Security,
> the taxing part of the plan and the provision for
> payout were carefully separated; the tax is
> nominally for the "general welfare" and the payout
> is just something Congress happens to be doing
> with the Treasury's money, as it is empowered to
> do in the Constitution.
It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of the
concept of enumerated powers, Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general welfare"
as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers and the 9th
and 10th amendments?
*Anarcissie*
I'm just going by what Deadrat says, and he does
seem to have a grasp of the practical situation.
I think what I jokingly call the "ruling class" finds
it a convenient tool to get the government to do
things it wants done, but might have trouble with
getting through Congress or the Administration.
Thus Mr. O's or Congress's "health care" bill
will be declared constitutional or not, not based
on the Constitution, but on the Court's assessment
of some calculus of power it is difficult for the
_profanum_vulgus_ to know anything about.
Charles Bell
> On Nov 22, 12:14 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 11:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To summarize:
>
> > > A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
> > > Constitution is irrelevant because the Constitution is
> > > whatever the Supreme Court says it is,
>
> > Only because the Supreme Court, not the Constitution, haa declared it
> > so. The Congress and President can ignore the Supreme Court at any
> > time, and indeed the people of the U.S. should abolish the Supreme
> > Court's usurped right of judicial review to nullify Congressional law
> > on the basis of constitutionality and replace it in a Constitutional
> > Committee made up of members appointed by the states as well as
> > abolish the Senate as redundant in this respect.
>
> > > The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
> > > to superficial observation,
>
> > Oh, but it is. It is the oligarchy that Jefferson and the original
> > anti-federalists warned against. Abitrary law by 5 of 9 decision.
>
> I'm just going by what Deadrat says, and he does
> seem to have a grasp of the practical situation.
> I think what I jokingly call the "ruling class" finds
> it a convenient tool to get the government to do
> things it wants done, but might have trouble with
> getting through Congress or the Administration.
Yes, neither Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative fully
understand that the federalism of 1789 is dead and has been dead since
the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The conservative generally has has
better feel for this (re: Roe v. Wade) but being conservative will not
countenance a radical change in the Constitution to fix it, especially
as it will require a Constitutional Convention, and today's Democrat
socialist rejoice in an impotent federalist, limited-government
Constitution that we have.
> Thus Mr. O's or Congress's "health care" bill
> will be declared constitutional or not, not based
> on the Constitution, but on the Court's assessment
> of some calculus of power it is difficult for the
> _profanum_vulgus_ to know anything about.
Unfortunately, the common man does not mind an oligarchic judiciary if
they are misinformed to think that it is following some ancient
tradition. Quite frankly, even Justice Scalia overcomes his
originalist tendency to rest on judicial precedent *only* because it
is precedent and not so related to original intent -- giving almost
mystical power to the Supreme Court to see things no one else can see.
Deadrat
news:805990a3-32a0-462e...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
A sure-fire indicator of ignorance is the claim that Social Security is a
Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which the operator uses later
investors' contributions to fund earlier participants' returns. The
clueless think Social Security must be a Ponzi scheme because today's
workers fund yesterday's workers (i.e., retirees). But in a Ponzi
scheme, the operator pays returns in such a way that he requires an
exponentially increasing number of new investors. And the operator has
no source of funds other than the misinformed and gullible. Of course,
neither of these things obtains for Social Security, the funding for
which is based on taxation set by actuarial assumptions and relies on a
generally increasing economy.
Now, the actuarial assumptions may be wrong, and the economy may go into
a decades-long decline. In that case, we won't be able to continue to
pay retirees. In fact, we're all doomed under that scenario. But the
failure won't because the system was a Ponzi scheme.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:b3659a3c-fee6-4471...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> To summarize:
>
> A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
> Constitution is irrelevant because the Constitution is
> whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme
> Court does not proceed by rational analysis of the
> Constitution, as _Gonzales_v_Raich shows. If a
> person growing marijuana strictly for her own use is
> engaging in interstate commerce, then anything
> whatever is interstate commerce.
But of course, in two decisions, US v Lopez and US v Morrison, the
Supreme Court *did* set limits on what could be intersate commerce.
>
> The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
> to superficial observation,
It's certainly not obvious to ignoramuses.
> but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
> common sense. An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court decisions, but
just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does not
make them irrational.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:805990a3-32a0-462e...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> >> If there's a public option, they can simply tax. That's not a
> >> problem.
>
> > Social Security was saved in the Supreme Court by calling it a
> > tax-for- welfare scheme for some (and not all) employed workers and
> > not a forced retirement scheme and so it actually has become that in
> > any case, rather than an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
>
> A sure-fire indicator of ignorance is the claim that Social Security is a
> Ponzi scheme.
To the extent that people believe that SocSec. is a retirement fund
into which they invest their money on a weekly basis from their
paychecks, SocSec is in the definition of a Ponzi scheme whereby past
investors are given the money from current investors (from their FICA
"investments") Now, it is true that certainly since Reagan and
Goldwater pointed out to the American people in the 1964 Presidential
campaign that Soc.Sec as a retiree investment is a sham, people
*ought to know* that SocSec is just welfare for the elderly and
disabled for which they pay FICA taxes.
Similarly, in due course, with or without a Supreme Court decision,
ObamaCare will be simply a welfare transfer via tax for medical
services.
> But in a Ponzi
> scheme, the operator pays returns in such a way that he requires an
> exponentially increasing number of new investors. And the operator has
> no source of funds other than the misinformed and gullible.
That is not true in a long-lasting Ponzi scheme like that of Bernie
Madoff. He *did* have many legitimate investments but none that
returned the 10+% he was paying out. This is *exactly* like SocSec in
that FICA taxes are invested in such a way as to yield perhaps 2% per
annum but the payouts exceed the return on investments, and the only
way to keep the system going is to increase the revenue from existing
investors/suckers (increase FICA taxes) or increase the number of
investors/suckers by opening the borders to any and all aliens for a
whole new class of investors/suckers.
Deadrat
a308-592...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 11:21�pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 9:38�pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ...
>> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
>> > purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
>> > purchase of private health insurance is not.
>>
>> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
>> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>
> Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
> Even Sen. Snowe somewhere in her
> objection to the public opition made the claim of
> unconstitutionality.
May we have a cite?
<snip/>
> It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of the
> concept of enumerated powers,
The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may not
take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles with its
meaning.
> Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
> the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
> welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general welfare"
> as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers and the 9th
> and 10th amendments?
I doubt that you believe that Congress may do "*anything*" under the
rubric of general welfare. So why make the argument?
The 9th and 10th don't add much to the Constitution. They make explicit
what the founders understood about a federal system. The 9th basically
disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely saying
that the right isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Deadrat
> On Nov 22, 1:55�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:805990a3-32a0-462e-9198
> -d34b66...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> >> If there's a public option, they can simply tax. �That's not a
>> >> problem.
>>
>> > Social Security was saved in the Supreme Court by calling it a
>> > tax-for- welfare scheme for some (and not all) employed workers and
>> > not a forced retirement scheme and so it actually has become �that
>> > in any case, rather than an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
>>
>> A sure-fire indicator of ignorance is the claim that Social Security
>> is a Ponzi scheme.
>
>
> To the extent that people believe that SocSec. is a retirement fund
> into which they invest their money on a weekly basis from their
> paychecks, SocSec is in the definition of a Ponzi scheme whereby past
> investors are given the money from current investors (from their FICA
> "investments")
A scheme either is a Ponzi scheme or it isn't. This will be independent
on what people believe. Did I really need to point this out?
> Now, it is true that certainly since Reagan and
> Goldwater pointed out to the American people in the 1964 Presidential
> campaign that Soc.Sec as a retiree investment is a sham, people
> *ought to know* that SocSec is just welfare for the elderly and
> disabled for which they pay FICA taxes.
OK, you're right. Let's bring back the impoverished elderly of pre-
Social Security days. They won't be a burden if we global warming
doesn't get rid of all the ice floes on which to abandon them.
>
> Similarly, in due course, with or without a Supreme Court decision,
> ObamaCare will be simply a welfare transfer via tax for medical
> services.
And what do you call the current system in which the transfer still takes
place, but to insurance companies? The single biggest cause of
bankruptcies is medical bills.
>>�But in a Ponzi
>> scheme, the operator pays returns in such a way that he requires an
>> exponentially increasing number of new investors. �And the operator
>> has no source of funds other than the misinformed and gullible. �
>
>
> That is not true in a long-lasting Ponzi scheme like that of Bernie
> Madoff.
Bernie's was a long-lasting scheme by Ponzi standards, maybe ten years.
By the definition of exponential, these schemes can't last very long.
Social Security is about 70 years old, and its funding troubles aren't
projected to arrive, if at all, for another 40 years or so.
> He *did* have many legitimate investments but none that
> returned the 10+% he was paying out. This is *exactly*
If you think the word "exactly," means "has no correspondence to."
> like SocSec in
> that FICA taxes are invested in such a way as to yield perhaps 2% per
> annum but the payouts exceed the return on investments, and the only
> way to keep the system going is to increase the revenue from existing
> investors/suckers (increase FICA taxes) or increase the number of
> investors/suckers by opening the borders to any and all aliens for a
> whole new class of investors/suckers.
The illegal aliens paying billions into the system are already the
suckers. They'll never see a dime.
A Ponzi scheme relies on an ever growing pool of new investors. Social
Security relies on the health of the economy, which needn't shrink even
when the number of retirees increases.
Getting rid of FICA taxes doesn't get rid of the societal cost of
retirees. It does socialize the risk, but that's up to the voters.
Social Security may be a bad idea. Social Security may even be
impossible to fund even in a reasonable economy. But it is facile and
ignorant to believe that the underlying problem is a Ponzi scheme.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
> a308-59218c42c...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > ...
> >> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
> >> > purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
> >> > purchase of private health insurance is not.
>
> >> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
> >> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>
> > Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
>
> Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
>
It settles the issue that you are wrong that Republicans have not been
bringing up constitutionality. House minority leader Boehner has also
voiced opposition in constitutionality:
"Well, I’m not a lawyer and I’m certainly not a constitutional lawyer,
but I think it’s wrong to mandate that the American people have to do
anything.
"You know, one of the things that’s great about America is that we
have the freedom to do anything that we want, as long as it doesn’t
infringe on somebody else’s freedom.” [Oct. 2009]
> > It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of the
> > concept of enumerated powers,
>
> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may not
> take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles with its
> meaning.
>
Yes, it does enumerate powers. Here they are:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
> > Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
> > the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
> > welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general welfare"
> > as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers and the 9th
> > and 10th amendments?
>
> I doubt that you believe that Congress may do "*anything*" under the
> rubric of general welfare. So why make the argument?
Of course, I don't. You are trying to make that argument, and in the
above you place all the constitutionality for socialized health care
in "provide for the general welfare" and "regulation of interstate
commerce" but those two provisions were never intended to give
Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants. Your argument is that
there are really no such things as enumerated powers [in spite of the
fact that the Consititution calls these things "enumerated powers" in
the Billl of Rights] *or* whatever enumerated powers there may be, it
does not matter because Congress has the power to do whatever it wants
-- in which case why is it specified, for example, that Congress is to
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads" when surely the "general
welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses would take care of that?
>
> The 9th and 10th don't add much to the Constitution. They make explicit
> what the founders understood about a federal system.
Which is to say that the federal government has specific powers and
only those powers(enumerated in section 8 quoted above) and everything
else was left to the states. The history of the Bill of Rights
containing the 9th and 10th amendments was that protectors of ancient
states' rights (and applicable English Common Law) like George Mason,
in particular, refused to sign on a new federal Constitution without
such a Bill of Rights.
> The 9th basically
> disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely saying
> that the right isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution.
You have that completely backwards. A state will not (or ought not)
allow the federal government to do anything to its citizens unless the
power is specified in the Constitution. There has always been a little
slipperiness contained in the interstate commerce clause and the
general welfare phrase because of the inexact nature of what is or is
not interstate commerce and what is or is not a "general welfare"
shared among all the states, but there is no possible interpretation
that a citizen of any state is to be forced to own medical insurance
against his will within the language "To regulate Commerce among the
Several States."
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:0e52dac9-418e-43ec...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> > To the extent that people believe that SocSec. is a retirement fund
> > into which they invest their money on a weekly basis from their
> > paychecks, SocSec is in the definition of a Ponzi scheme whereby past
> > investors are given the money from current investors (from their FICA
> > "investments")
>
> A scheme either is a Ponzi scheme or it isn't. This will be independent
> on what people believe. Did I really need to point this out?
>
Do I really need to point out that SocSec. is believed to be a
retirement fund by most people who are forced to pay into it, rather
than realizing that it is a tax-for-welfare scheme and defined as such
by the Supreme Court?
> > Now, it is true that certainly since Reagan and
> > Goldwater pointed out to the American people in the 1964 Presidential
> > campaign that Soc.Sec as a retiree investment is a sham, people
> > *ought to know* that SocSec is just welfare for the elderly and
> > disabled for which they pay FICA taxes.
>
> OK, you're right. Let's bring back the impoverished elderly of pre-
> Social Security days.
Whatever it takes. My preference is to divide the nation into two:
one capitalist under the Constitution (Red States) and the other
socialist under The One (Blue States) and see how long it takes for
either the Blue States go to war with the Red States to get the
capitalists back as sacrifical animals they need them to be or the
Blue States descend into anarchy (which I gather most posters here are
looking forward to).
> They won't be a burden if we global warming
> doesn't get rid of all the ice floes on which to abandon them.
>
Or plan B is to banish socialists to Antarctica inasmuch as they think
it will well sustain life shortly.
>
>
> > Similarly, in due course, with or without a Supreme Court decision,
> > ObamaCare will be simply a welfare transfer via tax for medical
> > services.
>
> And what do you call the current system in which the transfer still takes
> place, but to insurance companies?
Freedom.
> The single biggest cause of
> bankruptcies is medical bills.
Boo hoo. Life sucks and then you die.
>
> >> But in a Ponzi
> >> scheme, the operator pays returns in such a way that he requires an
> >> exponentially increasing number of new investors. And the operator
> >> has no source of funds other than the misinformed and gullible.
>
> > That is not true in a long-lasting Ponzi scheme like that of Bernie
> > Madoff.
>
> Bernie's was a long-lasting scheme by Ponzi standards, maybe ten years.
Twenty and might have kept going but for the fact that Madoff's sons
got cold feet and turned in their old man.
> By the definition of exponential, these schemes can't last very long.
> Social Security is about 70 years old,
And the taxes raised for it have risen from 2% (1939) to 15.3%
It consumes 22% of the budget when defense costs (an actual
constitutionally mandated expense)17%
> and its funding troubles aren't
> projected to arrive, if at all, for another 40 years or so.
>
Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it
receives in taxes in 2017 (based on 2008 revenues). While the
government cannot address the looming SocSec funding crisis it will
create another unfundable health care entitlement.
Deadrat
> On Nov 22, 2:38�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
>> a308-59218c42c...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 16, 11:21�pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 16, 9:38�pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote
>:
>>
>> >> > ...
>> >> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the
>> >> > forced purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but
>> >> > the forced purchase of private health insurance is not.
>>
>> >> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
>> >> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>>
>> > Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
>>
>> Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
> It settles the issue that you are wrong that Republicans have not been
> bringing up constitutionality.
It was a rhetorical question, but I'll rephrase it: Michelle Bachman is
a brain-dead rightard and couldn't tell the Constitution from a phone
book. So, if she claims to think it's a Constitutional issue, it really
doesn't count for serious discussion.
> House minority leader Boehner has also
> voiced opposition in constitutionality:
>
> "Well, I�m not a lawyer and I�m certainly not a constitutional lawyer,
So another Republican self-admitted ignoramus weighs in with his opinion
...
> but I think it�s wrong to mandate that the American people have to do
> anything.
>
> "You know, one of the things that�s great about America is that we
> have the freedom to do anything that we want, as long as it doesn�t
> infringe on somebody else�s freedom.� [Oct. 2009]
and does *not* question the bill's Constitutionality, just its
"rightness."
>> > It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of
>> > the concept of enumerated powers,
>>
>> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may
>> not take. �It's language is general and every generation wrestles
>> with its meaning.
>>
>
> Yes, it does enumerate powers. Here they are:
>
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
> Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
> Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Please try reading for comprehension: I said that the Constitution
doesn't enumerate specific *actions* The powers are broad and require
every generation to evalue how they are to be used.
<snipped: cut and paste/>
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
> shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
>
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
No Air Force? The USAF must be unconstitutional!
<snip: the rest of cut and paste>
You'll notice that there's very little in the enumerated powers that tell
us *how* those powers are to be used or how they're limited.
>> > Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
>> > the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
>> > welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general
>> > welfare" as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers
>> > and the 9th and 10th amendments?
>>
>> I doubt that you believe that Congress may do "*anything*" under the
>> rubric of general welfare. �So why make the argument?
>
> Of course, I don't. You are trying to make that argument,
But, of course, I'm the one posting SCOTUS decisions that limit the
commerce clause. Please try to keep up.
> and in the
> above you place all the constitutionality for socialized health care
> in "provide for the general welfare" and "regulation of interstate
> commerce" but those two provisions were never intended to give
> Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants.
1. It doesn't matter much what you think was "intended." If you can read
minds across 220 years, then I'm impressed. You'd be better off leaving
the seances (or whatever you use to get your ideas about intent) and
reading some Constitutional law. The relevant cases are all online.
2. The two provisions have been interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that is
consistent with the Constitutionality of the current health-insurance
bills. That doesn't mean that the Court couldn't invalidate the current
bills, if any become law.
> Your argument is that
> there are really no such things as enumerated powers
Since you're basically arguing with yourself, my presence isn't strictly
required in this thread, is it?
> [in spite of the
> fact that the Consititution calls these things "enumerated powers" in
> the Billl of Rights] *or* whatever enumerated powers there may be, it
> does not matter because Congress has the power to do whatever it wants
> -- in which case why is it specified, for example, that Congress is to
> "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" when surely the "general
> welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses would take care of that?
Presumably, because the founders wanted Congress to build post offices
and post roads.
>>
>> The 9th and 10th don't add much to the Constitution. �They make
>> explicit what the founders understood about a federal system.
>
>
> Which is to say that the federal government has specific powers and
> only those powers(enumerated in section 8 quoted above) and everything
> else was left to the states. The history of the Bill of Rights
> containing the 9th and 10th amendments was that protectors of ancient
> states' rights (and applicable English Common Law) like George Mason,
> in particular, refused to sign on a new federal Constitution without
> such a Bill of Rights.
Thanks for sharing. And your point?
> >�The 9th basically
>> disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely saying
>> that the right isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution.
>
> You have that completely backwards. A state will not (or ought not)
> allow the federal government to do anything to its citizens unless the
> power is specified in the Constitution.
This is a nice sentiment, but in fact, the Constitution, in particular
the Bill of Rights, limits the federal government by placing restrictions
on *it*. Not by empowering the states. The states have nowhere to go
except to the fed gov (i.e., the Supreme Court) when they fear their
authority has been usurped.
> There has always been a little
> slipperiness contained in the interstate commerce clause and the
> general welfare phrase because of the inexact nature of what is or is
> not interstate commerce and what is or is not a "general welfare"
> shared among all the states, but there is no possible interpretation
> that a citizen of any state is to be forced to own medical insurance
> against his will within the language "To regulate Commerce among the
> Several States."
Just as there's no possible interpretation that a working citizen of any
state must pay taxes to pay retirees in other states?
Look, if you don't want health-insurance reform, fine. If you were a
Supreme Court Justice, and you wouldn't vote to uphold the
Constitutionality of the current health-insurance bills, also fine. But
please don't tell me that there is no possible intepretation of the
commerce clause that allows these bills to become valid laws. You don't
know enough. At least, not if your idea of Constitutional construction
is to search for the words "health care" in the Constitution.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:739f7c4d-7114-4a65...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 2:38 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
> >> a308-59218c42c...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Nov 16, 11:21 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >:
>
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the
> >> >> > forced purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but
> >> >> > the forced purchase of private health insurance is not.
>
> >> >> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
> >> >> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>
> >> > Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
>
> >> Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
> > It settles the issue that you are wrong that Republicans have not been
> > bringing up constitutionality.
>
> It was a rhetorical question, but I'll rephrase it: Michelle Bachman is
. . . Is one conservative who speaks like it is. On the one hand,
right-libertarians complain that the GOP is just as bad as the Dems.
but at the same time, the Republicans who speak against Washington
collectivist group-think like Bachman and Palin are ridiculed.
> a brain-dead rightard and couldn't tell the Constitution from a phone
> book. So, if she claims to think it's a Constitutional issue, it really
> doesn't count for serious discussion.
>
> > House minority leader Boehner has also
> > voiced opposition in constitutionality:
>
> > "Well, I’m not a lawyer and I’m certainly not a constitutional lawyer,
>
> So another Republican self-admitted ignoramus weighs in with his opinion
> ...
As opposed to the Dems who admit there is nothing in the Consitution
that permit Congress to do this thing. Boehner is saying that the
answer to the question is so obvious that it does not take an "expert"
to determine.
>
> > but I think it’s wrong to mandate that the American people have to do
> > anything.
>
> > "You know, one of the things that’s great about America is that we
> > have the freedom to do anything that we want, as long as it doesn’t
> > infringe on somebody else’s freedom.” [Oct. 2009]
>
> and does *not* question the bill's Constitutionality, just its
> "rightness."
With respect to the Constitution. You see it *does* take a lawyer to
parse someone's words to mean something that he did not obviously
mean, just as it would take a lawyer to interpret the Constitution in
a way that it was never intended to mean.
>
> >> > It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of
> >> > the concept of enumerated powers,
>
> >> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may
> >> not take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles
> >> with its meaning.
>
> > Yes, it does enumerate powers. Here they are:
>
> > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> > Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
> > Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
> > Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
>
> Please try reading for comprehension: I said that the Constitution
> doesn't enumerate specific *actions*
Yes, the Constitution does have enumeration of powers for specific
actions (which does not mean that certain actions *must* be taken or
in specifically defined ways like, for example, a postage stamp
cannot be more than 2 cents). The power to create and maintain a post
office and the postal roads does not mean that action does have to be
taken, only that it may, but the power for that action is there and
not an action to create a road for Sen. Byrd's personal use in W.Va
for example.
> The powers are broad and require
The powers are specific and limited.
> every generation to evalue how they are to be used.
>
Only those actions which the Congress is empowered to take (and may
not have done so) or to stop Congress from those actions it still may
retain the power to take. Every generation can amend the
Constitution to create more powers should it want, but no Congress
can make up a power to take action without reference to the enumerated
powers in the Constitution existing at the time. There is no power in
the Constitution for mandating health insurance among the citizens
unless one does away with the entire concept of enumerated powers and
allow Congress to do whatever it wants.
>
> > Of course, I don't. You are trying to make that argument,
>
> But, of course, I'm the one posting SCOTUS decisions that limit the
> commerce clause. Please try to keep up.
>
And I am the one posting that SCOTUS has no power to amend the
Constitution to its particular liking.
> > and in the
> > above you place all the constitutionality for socialized health care
> > in "provide for the general welfare" and "regulation of interstate
> > commerce" but those two provisions were never intended to give
> > Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants.
>
> 1. It doesn't matter much what you think was "intended."
It matters what was intended by the framers of the Constitution to
some extent, at least, except to the most radically left jurists like
Ginsburg who simply don't care what the Constitution says at all, much
less what it was intended to mean.
>
> 2. The two provisions have been interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that is
> consistent with the Constitutionality
No, they have not been. This has been true since Wickard v. Filburn
and finished off recently with Katzenbach v. McClung, SCOTUS has no
moral authority left to rule on the constitutionality w/re the
interstate commerce clause.
>
> > [in spite of the
> > fact that the Consititution calls these things "enumerated powers" in
> > the Billl of Rights] *or* whatever enumerated powers there may be, it
> > does not matter because Congress has the power to do whatever it wants
> > -- in which case why is it specified, for example, that Congress is to
> > "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" when surely the "general
> > welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses would take care of that?
>
> Presumably, because the founders wanted Congress to build post offices
> and post roads.
>
That does not answer the question of why enumerate a power that does
not have to be enumerated (that you say are not actually enumerated)
when "general welfare" should cover everything. The enumerated power
to run the post office in not a mandate for action but a power to act,
as are all the enumerated powers.
> > Which is to say that the federal government has specific powers and
> > only those powers(enumerated in section 8 quoted above) and everything
> > else was left to the states. The history of the Bill of Rights
> > containing the 9th and 10th amendments was that protectors of ancient
> > states' rights (and applicable English Common Law) like George Mason,
> > in particular, refused to sign on a new federal Constitution without
> > such a Bill of Rights.
>
>
> > > The 9th basically
> >> disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely saying
> >> that the right isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution.
>
> > You have that completely backwards. A state will not (or ought not)
> > allow the federal government to do anything to its citizens unless the
> > power is specified in the Constitution.
>
> This is a nice sentiment, but in fact, the Constitution, in particular
> the Bill of Rights, limits the federal government by placing restrictions
> on *it*. Not by empowering the states.
The states already had those powers (for example, to limit free speech
and deny habeas corpus) and often still do, so, of course, the
Constitution did not limit the powers of the states except when it
monopolized certain specific powers to the federal government (for
example, immigration and naturalization)
> The states have nowhere to go
> except to the fed gov (i.e., the Supreme Court) when they fear their
> authority has been usurped.
Constitutional Convention is where the states should go, not the
Supreme Court which is *only* interested since 1938 in maximizing
federal power. It was supposed that a pre-17th amendment Senate was
protective of states rights, though the Civil War emasculated that
power for the most part, completed by the 17th amendment. SCOTUS has
been a miserable failure in every respect except as an appeals court
of last resort (its specified constitutional power), and the
Constitution should be amended to reflect that reality by specifically
denying the right of judical review to the federal courts.
>
> > There has always been a little
> > slipperiness contained in the interstate commerce clause and the
> > general welfare phrase because of the inexact nature of what is or is
> > not interstate commerce and what is or is not a "general welfare"
> > shared among all the states, but there is no possible interpretation
> > that a citizen of any state is to be forced to own medical insurance
> > against his will within the language "To regulate Commerce among the
> > Several States."
>
> Just as there's no possible interpretation that a working citizen of any
> state must pay taxes to pay retirees in other states?
Yes, unless those retirees are performing a service for the federal
government.
>
> Look, if you don't want health-insurance reform, fine. If you were a
> Supreme Court Justice, and you wouldn't vote to uphold the
> Constitutionality of the current health-insurance bills, also fine. But
> please don't tell me that there is no possible intepretation of the
> commerce clause that allows these bills to become valid laws.
Yes, that is what I am saying. You have not actually stated *how* the
regulation of interstate commerce *can* mandate a citizen to buy
health insurance except by fiat. What the interstate commerce clause
can do is allow the federal government to force interstate competition
among insurance companies which is part of the GOP plan.
Joseph K.
wrote:
>I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
>Administration's current medical insurance plan as
>it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
>understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>insurance from private insurers. However, there
>does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>empowering the Federal government to compel
>one class of private citizens to give money to another.
What about the right to private property? By forcing people to buy
medical insurance the government is expropriating part of a worker's
salary to pass it on to a private insurance company. Most likely the
system will actually work like that: the owner of that money, the
worker, will never see the money, it will be passed directly on to the
private insurer. It has been like that in another country that I know
of for many years.
>Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>that less-wealthy people give their money to
>more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>speaking. I suppose the Court's recent decision with
>respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
>courts decided it was all right for state and local
>governments to take property away from private
>persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
>other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
>for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
>strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
>I expect some sort of legal argument to be
>constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
>know if there are any sketches of it making the
>rounds yet.
Well, in another country that I know of, where a worker's money is
expropriated to pass it on to private medical insurers or pension
funds, no lawyer has ever raised the issue of unconstitutionality of
expropriation.
I call this system reverse-socialism, since the worker is expropriated
to give money to the rich.
Joseph K.
wrote:
That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as you
remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you and I
have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted the
possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to private
property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of private
property as the USA.
Deadrat
> On Nov 22, 2:53�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:0e52dac9-418e-43ec-ba8f
> -b640f8...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> > To the extent that �people believe that SocSec. is a retirement
>> > fund into which they invest their money on a weekly basis from
>> > their paychecks, SocSec is in the definition of a Ponzi scheme
>> > whereby past investors are given the money from current investors
>> > (from their FICA "investments")
>>
>> A scheme either is a Ponzi scheme or it isn't. �This will be
>> independent
>> on what people believe. �Did I really need to point this out?
>>
>
> Do I really need to point out that SocSec. is believed to be a
> retirement fund by most people who are forced to pay into it, rather
> than realizing that it is a tax-for-welfare scheme and defined as such
> by the Supreme Court?
Of course you don't. And that's my point. What people believe SocSec is
for has no bearing on whether it's a Ponzi scheme.
>> > Now, it is true that certainly since Reagan and
>> > Goldwater pointed out to the American people in the 1964
>> > Presidential campaign that Soc.Sec as a retiree investment is a
>> > sham, �people *ought to know* that SocSec is just welfare for the
>> > elderly and disabled for which they pay FICA taxes.
>>
>> OK, you're right. �Let's bring back the impoverished elderly of pre-
>> Social Security days.
> Whatever it takes. My preference is to divide the nation into two:
> one capitalist under the Constitution (Red States) and the other
> socialist under The One (Blue States) and see how long it takes for
> either the Blue States go to war with the Red States to get the
> capitalists back as sacrifical animals they need them to be or the
> Blue States descend into anarchy (which I gather most posters here are
> looking forward to).
Bwahahahahaha! The Red States get more back for than they send in tax
dollars.
But it's good to see you up front about the good ol' Union. Indivisible
and all.
>>�They won't be a burden if we global warming
>> doesn't get rid of all the ice floes on which to abandon them.
> Or plan B is to banish socialists to Antarctica inasmuch as they think
> it will well sustain life shortly.
Zing!
>> > Similarly, in due course, with or without a Supreme Court decision,
>> > ObamaCare will be simply a welfare transfer via tax for medical
>> > services.
>>
>> And what do you call the current system in which the transfer still
>> takes place, but to insurance companies?
> Freedom.
A la George Orwell.
>
>>�The single biggest cause of bankruptcies is medical bills.
>
> Boo hoo. Life sucks and then you die.
... if you're poor: the Republican Party platform. But given that fact,
you'll have to do better than that to gainsay the claim that health
insurance doesn't fall under interstate commerce.
>> >>�But in a Ponzi
>> >> scheme, the operator pays returns in such a way that he requires
>> >> an exponentially increasing number of new investors. �And the
>> >> operator has no source of funds other than the misinformed and
>> >> gullible. �
>>
>> > That is not true in a long-lasting Ponzi scheme like that of Bernie
>> > Madoff.
>>
>> Bernie's was a long-lasting scheme by Ponzi standards, maybe ten
>> years.
> �
>
> Twenty and might have kept going but for the fact that Madoff's sons
> got cold feet and turned in their old man.
I don't know the details. I doubt anybody does. Madoff may have been in
business for 20 years -- still a short time -- but from what I've read, I
think he crossed the line into Ponzi territory about 10 years ago.
>> By the definition of exponential, these schemes can't last very long.
>> � Social Security is about 70 years old,
>
>
> And the taxes raised for it have risen from 2% (1939) to 15.3%
And the CPI has increased about fifteen fold since the. What's your point?
>
> It consumes 22% of the budget when defense costs (an actual
> constitutionally mandated expense)17%
FY2008 has them even at 21% apiece. So what?
>
>> and its funding troubles aren't
>> projected to arrive, if at all, for another 40 years or so.
> Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it
> receives in taxes in 2017 (based on 2008 revenues).
Social Security has been collecting extra taxes for years in anticipation
of 2017. The system won't run out of money even with pessimistic economic
projections until 2045.
> While the
> government cannot address the looming SocSec funding crisis it will
> create another unfundable health care entitlement.
SocSec is not in crisis. Medicare is.
But thanks for your prognostication on health care. I assume that opinion
is as informed as the rest of yours.
Charles Bell
Deadrat
> On Nov 22, 4:43�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:739f7c4d-7114-4a65-bccd
> -959afd...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 22, 2:38�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> >> news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
>> >> a308-59218c42c...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 16, 11:21�pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 16, 9:38�pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wr
> ote
>> >:
>>
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the
>> >> >> > forced purchase of private pension plans is constitutional,
>> >> >> > but the forced purchase of private health insurance is not.
>>
>> >> >> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
>> >> >> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>>
>> >> > Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
>>
>> >> Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
>> > It settles the issue that you are wrong that Republicans have not
>> > been bringing up constitutionality.
>>
>> It was a rhetorical question, but I'll rephrase it: �Michelle Bachman
>> i
> s
>
>
> . . . Is one conservative who speaks like it is.
Yeah, she thinks Congress ought to be investigated to find out which
members are anti-American, she's a birther, she thinks Obama is planning
re-education camps for opponents, she's afraid of the census, she's an
Intelligent Design proponent.
She speaks like it is in her head, which is apparently a very scary and
confused place.
> On the one hand,
> right-libertarians complain that the GOP is just as bad as the Dems.
> but at the same time, the Republicans who speak against Washington
> collectivist group-think like Bachman and Palin are ridiculed.
>
>> a brain-dead rightard and couldn't tell the Constitution from a phone
>> book. �So, if she claims to think it's a Constitutional issue, it
>> really doesn't count for serious discussion.
>>
>> > House minority leader Boehner has also
>> > voiced opposition in constitutionality:
>>
>> > "Well, I�m not a lawyer and I�m certainly not a constitutional lawy
> er,
>>
>> So another Republican self-admitted ignoramus weighs in with his
>> opinion ...
>
> As opposed to the Dems who admit there is nothing in the Consitution
> that permit Congress to do this thing.
I know of no Dem who "admits" to any such thing.
> Boehner is saying that the
> answer to the question is so obvious that it does not take an "expert"
> to determine.
And how would he know? You think that Constitutional law doesn't take
any study?
>> > but I think it�s wrong to mandate that the American people have to
>> > do anything.
>>
>> > "You know, one of the things that�s great about America is that we
>> > have the freedom to do anything that we want, as long as it doesn�t
>> > infringe on somebody else�s freedom.� [Oct. 2009]
>>
>> and does *not* question the bill's Constitutionality, just its
>> "rightness."
>
> With respect to the Constitution.
Nowhere does he say that. He's says it's the wrong thing to do. In
fact, he *disclaims* any expertise in Constitutional law.
<snip/>
>> >> > It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of
>> >> > the concept of enumerated powers,
>>
>> >> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or
>> >> may not take. �It's language is general and every generation
>> >> wrestles with its meaning.
>>
>> > Yes, it does enumerate powers. �Here they are:
>>
>> > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>> > Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>> > Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
>> > Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
>>
>> Please try reading for comprehension: �I said that the Constitution
>> doesn't enumerate specific *actions*
>
> Yes, the Constitution does have enumeration of powers for specific
> actions (which does not mean that certain actions *must* be taken or
> in specifically defined ways like, for example, a postage stamp
> cannot be more than 2 cents). The power to create and maintain a post
> office and the postal roads does not mean that action does have to be
> taken, only that it may, but the power for that action is there and
> not an action to create a road for Sen. Byrd's personal use in W.Va
> for example.
Thanks for sharing the off-topic rant. It won't change the fact that
Congressional actions must be interpreted in light of the enumerated
powers. You won't find the words "health care"; you won't find the words
"air force" either
>> �The powers are broad and require
>
> The powers are specific and limited.
"Necessary and proper"? "Interstate commerce"? "Equal protection"?
Don't think so.
>> every generation to evalue how they are to be used.
>>
>
> Only those actions which the Congress is empowered to take (and may
> not have done so) or to stop Congress from those actions it still may
> retain the power to take. Every generation can amend the
> Constitution to create more powers should it want, but no Congress
> can make up a power to take action without reference to the enumerated
> powers in the Constitution existing at the time. There is no power in
> the Constitution for mandating health insurance among the citizens
> unless one does away with the entire concept of enumerated powers and
> allow Congress to do whatever it wants.
Your (uninformed) opinion is noted. The yardstick with which we measure
the commerce clause is maintained by the Supreme Court. You may have
another measuring device called your own uninformed opinion. We may
safely ignore it for the purposes of misc.legal.
>> > Of course, I don't. � You are trying to make that argument,
>>
>> But, of course, I'm the one posting SCOTUS decisions that limit the
>> commerce clause. �Please try to keep up.
> And I am the one posting that SCOTUS has no power to amend the
> Constitution to its particular liking.
Thanks for sharing. No one claims otherwise.
>> > and in the
>> > above you place all the constitutionality for socialized health
>> > care in "provide for the general welfare" and "regulation of
>> > interstate commerce" �but those two provisions were never intended
>> > to give Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants.
>>
>> 1. It doesn't matter much what you think was "intended."
> It matters what was intended by the framers of the Constitution to
> some extent, at least, except to the most radically left jurists like
> Ginsburg who simply don't care what the Constitution says at all, much
> less what it was intended to mean.
Please tell us how original intent, this thing that matters so much,
operates under our legal system. Show your work. Try to avoid words
like "should."
>> 2. The two provisions have been interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that
>> is consistent with the Constitutionality
> No, they have not been. This has been true since Wickard v. Filburn
> and finished off recently with Katzenbach v. McClung,
Is this what your ranting is all about? You want to go back to Jim Crow?
> SCOTUS has no
> moral authority left to rule on the constitutionality w/re the
> interstate commerce clause.
Please take this discussion to misc.moral.authority. This is misc.legal.
>> > [in spite of the
>> > fact that the Consititution calls these things "enumerated powers"
>> > in the Billl of Rights] *or* whatever enumerated powers there may
>> > be, it does not matter because Congress has the power to do
>> > whatever it wants -- in which case why is it specified, for
>> > example, that Congress is to "To establish Post Offices and post
>> > Roads" when �surely the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce"
>> > clauses would take care of that?
>>
>> Presumably, because the founders wanted Congress to build post
>> offices and post roads.
>>
>
> That does not answer the question of why enumerate a power that does
> not have to be enumerated (that you say are not actually enumerated)
Please stop putting your words in the mouths of others. It makes the
Baby Jesus cry.
> when "general welfare" should cover everything. The enumerated power
> to run the post office in not a mandate for action but a power to act,
> as are all the enumerated powers.
I've told you. This is a direct grant to Congress, presumably to get
them to build post offices and post roads and to preclude 13 different
types of postage stamps.
>> > Which is to say that the federal government has specific powers and
>> > only those powers(enumerated in section 8 quoted above) and
>> > everything else was left to the states. �The history of the Bill of
>> > Rights containing the 9th and 10th amendments was that protectors
>> > of ancient states' rights (and applicable English Common Law) like
>> > George Mason, in particular, refused to sign on a new federal
>> > Constitution without such a Bill of Rights.
>> > >�The 9th basically
>> >> disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely
>> >> saying that the right isn't explicitly protected by the
>> >> Constitution.
>>
>> > You have that completely backwards. �A state will not (or ought
>> > not) allow the federal government to do anything to its citizens
>> > unless the power is specified in the Constitution.
>>
>> This is a nice sentiment, but in fact, the Constitution, in
>> particular the Bill of Rights, limits the federal government by
>> placing restrictions on *it*. �Not by empowering the states. �
>
> The states already had those powers (for example, to limit free speech
> and deny habeas corpus) and often still do,
Few states had these powers, as these protections were granted in most
state constitutions. And almost none of these powers would exist even if
state constitutions were different. Almost all of the Bill of Rights
have been incorporated against the states.
> so, of course, the
> Constitution did not limit the powers of the states except when it
> monopolized certain specific powers to the federal government (for
> example, immigration and naturalization)
Sorry. The Constitution made itself the supreme law of the land, and
individual states have no rights of "self-help" when it comes to the
feds.
>> The states have nowhere to go
>> except to the fed gov (i.e., the Supreme Court) when they fear their
>> authority has been usurped.
>
> Constitutional Convention is where the states should go, not the
> Supreme Court which is *only* interested since 1938 in maximizing
> federal power.
That's true, but it's harder to get 3/4 of the states to agree than it is
to go to court.
> It was supposed that a pre-17th amendment Senate was
> protective of states rights,
How'd that work out?
> though the Civil War emasculated that
> power for the most part, completed by the 17th amendment.
The 17th Amendment mostly took the decision out of the hands of bought-
and-paid for state legislatures, at least those that hadn't agreed to
follow a popular vote for Senator. I don't know how many of those there
were.
> SCOTUS has
> been a miserable failure in every respect except as an appeals court
> of last resort (its specified constitutional power), and the
> Constitution should be amended to reflect that reality by specifically
> denying the right of judical review to the federal courts.
Your opinion is noted.
>> > There has always been a little
>> > slipperiness contained in the interstate commerce clause and the
>> > general welfare phrase because of the inexact nature of what is or
>> > is not interstate commerce and what is or is not a "general
>> > welfare" shared among all the states, but there is no possible
>> > interpretation that a �citizen of any state is to be forced to own
>> > medical insurance against his will within the language "To regulate
>> > Commerce among the Several States."
>>
>> Just as there's no possible interpretation that a working citizen of
>> any state must pay taxes to pay retirees in other states?
> Yes, unless those retirees are performing a service for the federal
> government.
Then we're done, here, no? The same interpretation that allows Social
Security will allow health insurance reform. I get that you don't like
either, but really, who cares?
>> Look, if you don't want health-insurance reform, fine. �If you were a
>> Supreme Court Justice, and you wouldn't vote to uphold the
>> Constitutionality of the current health-insurance bills, also fine.
>> But
>> please don't tell me that there is no possible intepretation of the
>> commerce clause that allows these bills to become valid laws.
>
> Yes, that is what I am saying. You have not actually stated *how* the
> regulation of interstate commerce *can* mandate a citizen to buy
> health insurance except by fiat. What the interstate commerce clause
> can do is allow the federal government to force interstate competition
> among insurance companies
Your opinion is noted. Read Wickard v Filburn to find out what the
commerce clause actually allows.
which is part of the GOP plan.
Is there no bullshit from the GOP that you won't buy? The GOP plan would
allow your friendly insurance company to sell you insurance where you
live but unregulated by your state insurance commission. Kinda like your
friendly credit card company doesn't have to abide by your state's usury
laws.
Deadrat
news:hiojg5pe01n3uf397...@4ax.com:
<snip/>
> That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as you
> remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you and I
> have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted the
> possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to private
> property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of private
> property as the USA.
Another ignoramus chimes in.
I realize that this is cross-posted to groups not concerned with legal
issues, but read the controlling case, Wickard v Filburn, for a dismissal
of the claim that the exercise of the commerce clause constitutes a taking
under the 5th Amendment (which is what I take is meant by "violation of the
right to private property."
Charles Bell
Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance from each
citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not in the
Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to put it there
using bad case law already decided.
Please move your pseudo-intellectual but still ignorant constitutional
talk to alt.soros.socialism where it can be ignored.
Deadrat
9aad41...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 11:34�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance from each
> citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not in the
> Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to put it there
> using bad case law already decided.
My argument is based on examining Supreme Court precedent. This may or may
not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like it) but it
is certainly controlling case law. The Court may or may not decide to
change that precedent, but for right now mandated medical insurance falls
within the Constitutional power of Congress.
>
> Please move your pseudo-intellectual but still ignorant constitutional
> talk to alt.soros.socialism where it can be ignored.
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me ignorant.
You have staked out a foolish position, namely that if we can't find
something mentioned by name in the Constitution, it is beyond the authority
of Congress to institute. This is what happens when you let your ideology
blind you to reality: you don't like health insurance reform so you've
decided not only that it's a bad idea, but also that it's unconstitutional.
In all this, I haven't defended the health insurance reform bills as
beneficial. I really don't know the effects of a change that large. I
doubt anyone does. But it is possible for me to put aside my prejudices and
read the Supreme Court cases that set the upper and lower bounds for the
exercise of the commerce clause. You might do likewise.
Just a suggestion. As always, it's up to you.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in news:7msudsF3ilhe9U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>>>> Thanks for the info, but as to the drugs you recommend (and
>>>> probably take yourself),
>>> No, whenever I feel down, I come to misc.legal to laugh at the
>>> ignoramuses. And, by the way, thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> "If it's laughing you need, then it's laughing indeed, and it's
> laughing
>> at me--" --Alice Cooper, "Laughing at Me"
> I love all the great philosophers -- Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
> Wittgenstein, and Alice Cooper.
Hahahaha!!!
>>>>> And there's nothing wrong with Smilin' Bob. How dare you put
>>>>> him in the same company as Pol Pot and Ann Coulter.
>>>> A satisfied customer, apparently.
>>> I wish. But given what Smilin' Bob's product claims to do, it
>>> either contains extremely dangerous hormone-like compounds or
>>> it's a harmless fraud. In either case, one is better off saving
>>> one's money.
>> No, it contains a "proprietary blend" of herbs that do things like
>> improve blood flow.
>
> If it's "proprietary," then how do you know what the blend is? If
> you don't know what's in it, how do you know it improves blood flow?
> Assuming that this unspecified "blood flow" is the problem in
> erectile dysfunction, how do you know this improvement doesn't have
> deleterious side effects on other organ systems? Any peer-reviewed
> literature? Or must we rely on testimonials? I don't consider the
> latter "critical recognition." YMMV.
The blend is proprietary, but they do list the ingredients. Anyone
interested would most likely do better to research the ingredients and
try them individually if the scientific research suggest that they might
help and are reasonably safe.
>> It would probably help you get an erection. If you need the help--
>
> I doubt it. Even if I were male.
Ah, well, in that case--
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:b3659a3c-fee6-4471...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> To summarize:
>>
>> A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the Constitution
>> is irrelevant because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>> Court says it is, and the Supreme Court does not proceed by
>> rational analysis of the Constitution, as _Gonzales_v_Raich shows.
>> If a person growing marijuana strictly for her own use is engaging
>> in interstate commerce, then anything whatever is interstate
>> commerce.
>
> But of course, in two decisions, US v Lopez and US v Morrison, the
> Supreme Court *did* set limits on what could be intersate commerce.
>> The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious to
>> superficial observation,
Did anyone accuse the Supreme Court of consistency in its rulings?
Dan Clore
accidentally omit the group where I'm reading and posting.
Deadrat wrote:
> Charles Bell <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
> a308-592...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>> On Nov 16, 11:21 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 9:38 pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>> It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of
>> the concept of enumerated powers,
>
> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may
> not take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles
> with its meaning.
I find this claim astounding. Particularly in light of wording in the
Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law . . ."
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:ea3e9fd5-0335-43a3-b254-
> 9aad41e3e...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 22, 11:34 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> > Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance from each
> > citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not in the
> > Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to put it there
> > using bad case law already decided.
>
> My argument is based on examining Supreme Court precedent. This may or may
> not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like it) but it
> is certainly controlling case law. The Court may or may not decide to
> change that precedent, but for right now mandated medical insurance falls
> within the Constitutional power of Congress.
>
No, SCOTUS would be making new constitutional law by placing ownership
of a product as a condition of U.S. citizenship (perhaps even beyond
that in making it a requirement for resident aliens). The owner of
Ollie's Barbecue did not *have* to run a restaurant just as an owner
of an automobile, sometimes required by a state to carry automobile
insurance, does not *have* to drive an automobile. There is not an
"out" for medical insurance in the Bills before Congress other than
moving out of the U.S. and giving up U.S. citizenship or dying. The
only thing that comes close to this sort of thing is conscription (or
coercion to sign up for possible conscription in Selective Service
registration) and Arver v. United States did not employ the
interstate commerce clause and indeed was another bad decision based
on, as is usually the case for bad SCOTUS decisions, English Common
law and not the Constitution except, by extension, broad war powers,
which to my mind, is sufficient exceptionally in a declared war
[contra United States v. Holmes not heard by SCOTUS], but, of course,
can have absolutely no application in the present discussion.
In summary, any argument in defense of the health care Bills before
Congress cannot use existing case law because they are limited in
scope in comparison and address only federal power with respect to
states' rights in interstate commerce rather than fundamental U.S.
citizen rights, unless SCOTUS incredibly would allow individual state
nullification in application of federal health care requirements .
Other than that, the only possible defense is to broaden the general
welfare clause to maximum scope to include the possibility that
Congress can pass any law with respect to any individual in any state
if it can be justified as for the Greater Good nullifying any
historical context for a limited federal government by specific
enumerated powers given to Congress.
Joseph K.
>Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote in
>news:hiojg5pe01n3uf397...@4ax.com:
>
><snip/>
>
>> That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as you
>> remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you and I
>> have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted the
>> possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to private
>> property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of private
>> property as the USA.
>
>Another ignoramus chimes in.
The fool starts a usenet conversation with this sort of lame
agression.
>I realize that this is cross-posted to groups not concerned with legal
>issues, but read the controlling case, Wickard v Filburn, for a dismissal
>of the claim that the exercise of the commerce clause constitutes a taking
>under the 5th Amendment (which is what I take is meant by "violation of the
>right to private property."
Legal issues are trivial to understand but it is tiresome to go dig
the info up. Please summarize the argument yourself.
Dan Clore
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> Could you please leave alt.anarchism in the follow-ups? I don't want to
> accidentally omit the group where I'm reading and posting.
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:0bd9f900-0571-460c-
>> a308-592...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>> On Nov 16, 11:21 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 16, 9:38 pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>> It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of
>>> the concept of enumerated powers,
>>
>> The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may
>> not take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles
>> with its meaning.
>
> I find this claim astounding.
I have no doubt. But it's only because you're ignorant.
> Particularly in light of wording in the
> Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law . . ."
This is a perfect example. In spite of the light of wording, Congress
(and courtesy of the 14th Amendment, the states) have all sorts of
Constitutional laws restricting speech: conspiracy, contract for murder,
assault, incitement to riot, revealing grand jury testimony, violating
court gag orders, contempt of court, false advertising, disturbing the
peace, revealing classified information -- all of these may involve
nothing more than words and yet may be criminal acts. Some states still
have criminal libel statutes on their books.
When the Constitution was adopted, public medicine was incapable of
affecting interstate commerce. Even were it possible to deliver medical
services effectively in post-colonial America, they probably would have
done more harm than good. The germ theory of disease and the concept of
vaccination were unknown. Life expectancy was in the 30s, making
diseases of old age largely unknown. The infant mortality rate was at
least 15 times what it is now, which meant that birth defects weren't a
medical problem. Epidemics in one part of the world couldn't threaten
the country within hours.
Things are different now, and the genius of the Constitution is that it
can still govern a society so much different. Did the founders intend to
have the government involved in heath insurance? An absurd question,
since even rudimentary health insurance wouldn't start for a century
after the founders wrote the Constitution. Which is why Article I
doesn't enumerate a list of possible actions permitted to Congress, and
which is why failure to find the words "health insurance" in Article I
means nothing.
Deadrat
> On Nov 23, 1:35�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:ea3e9fd5-0335-43a3-b25
> 4-
>> 9aad41e3e...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 22, 11:34�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance from
>> > each citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not in the
>> > Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to put it
>> > there using bad case law already decided.
>>
>> My argument is based on examining Supreme Court precedent. �This may
>> or
> may
>> not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like it)
>> but i
> t
>> is certainly controlling case law. �The Court may or may not decide
>> to change that precedent, but for right now mandated medical
>> insurance falls within the Constitutional power of Congress.
>>
>
> No, SCOTUS would be making new constitutional law by placing ownership
> of a product as a condition of U.S. citizenship (perhaps even beyond
> that in making it a requirement for resident aliens).
Sorry, but nothing in the current health insurance bills makes US
citizenship contingent on carrying insurance.
It's impossible to reply to this largely incoherent rant. Amusing that
you protest the powers of conscription, a power at least as comprehensive
as requiring health insurance. Pretty much undercuts your case, doesn't
it?
When you've read Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich, get back to us.
There's nothing that says the Supreme Court couldn't overturn any of the
health insurance bills should one become law. But *that* would be new
case law.
Deadrat
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:37:39 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote in
>>news:hiojg5pe01n3uf397...@4ax.com:
>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>> That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as
>>> you remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you
>>> and I have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted
>>> the possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to
>>> private property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of
>>> private property as the USA.
>>
>>Another ignoramus chimes in.
>
> The fool starts a usenet conversation with this sort of lame
> agression.
<fail type="epic" result="Bwahahahahaha">
An ignoramus tries to deflect attention from his ignorance with this sort
of lame comment, but misspells "aggression."
</fail>
>>I realize that this is cross-posted to groups not concerned with legal
>>issues, but read the controlling case, Wickard v Filburn, for a
>>dismissal of the claim that the exercise of the commerce clause
>>constitutes a taking under the 5th Amendment (which is what I take is
>>meant by "violation of the right to private property."
>
> Legal issues are trivial to understand
Yeah, which is why we've dispensed with law schools in this country.
> but it is tiresome to go dig the info up.
Yeah, it's just so tiresome to familiarize yourself with the facts. But
since it's so trivial to understand, why don't you give it a whirl?
> Please summarize the argument yourself.
Do your own work. Everything is online.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
>
> More fun:
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11003
>
From the article linked to:
<quote>
But members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution � not the
court's funhouse-mirror version of it.
</quote>
In fact, upholding the Constitution requires adhering to the Suprmee
Court's interpretation of the law. That's how the system works. If
Congress doesn't like how the Court rules, then it may
1. Change the law, if it's a statutory matter.
2. If it's not a statuory issue, start the process of changing the
Constitution, by passing an amendment.
3. Expand the Court.
4. Impeach the Justices.
Ignoring the Court is not an option within the system.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:01:34 -0500, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com>
The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
and according to income (16th Amendment). So
Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
whatever one wants). What I thought was unusual was
imposing a forced payment from one private party to
another.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:ee2cab48-c716-4b9e...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> >> > Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance from
> >> > each citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not in the
> >> > Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to put it
> >> > there using bad case law already decided.
>
> >> My argument is based on examining Supreme Court precedent. This may
> >> or
> > may
> >> not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like it)
> >> but it
> >> is certainly controlling case law. The Court may or may not decide
> >> to change that precedent, but for right now mandated medical
> >> insurance falls within the Constitutional power of Congress.
>
> > No, SCOTUS would be making new constitutional law by placing ownership
> > of a product as a condition of U.S. citizenship (perhaps even beyond
> > that in making it a requirement for resident aliens).
>
> Sorry, but nothing in the current health insurance bills makes US
> citizenship contingent on carrying insurance.
>
I'm sorry for myself that I thought for little while there that you
might not be some Fenton-Soros troll bot, but I was wrong. Anyone who
says that fines and imprisonment [*] for anyone not carrying a
government approved health insurance plan is not making U.S.
citizenship contingent on carrying health insurance is a lying
propagandist for the socialists.
[*] first, penalty tax of 2.5% of income, and thereafter up to
$250,000 fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years in the House
Bill. The issue is whether it is Constitutional to impose a tax on
only those who do not carry, and deliberately wish not to carry,
health insurance. *If* a "medical tax" were applied to everyone
equally regardless of condition of holding particular insurance
policies, then that would be a valid tax (though unjust), but a tax on
individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular insurance
policies is like a Bill of Attainder to punish without benefit of a
trial, and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts for not
having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should they
manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS harassment
techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved insurance policy.
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote innews:b3659a3c-fee6-4471...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > To summarize:
>
> > A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
> > whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme
> > Court does not proceed by rational analysis of the
> > Constitution, as _Gonzales_v_Raich shows. If a
> > person growing marijuana strictly for her own use is
> > engaging in interstate commerce, then anything
> > whatever is interstate commerce.
>
> But of course, in two decisions, US v Lopez and US v Morrison, the
> Supreme Court *did* set limits on what could be intersate commerce.
I should have added "if the Supreme Court happens to
say so" in my last sentence. What I mean is that there
does not appear to be any rational structure to the
Supreme Court's decisions on the power to regulate
interstate commerce.
> > The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
> > to superficial observation,
>
> It's certainly not obvious to ignoramuses.
Well, go ahead and give us the rationale. How can
we analyze a bill which rests on the interstate
commerce power so that we can determine whether
the Supreme Court will find it constitutional? We
ignoramuses would like to know.
> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
> > common sense. An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
>
> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court decisions, but
> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does not
> make them irrational.
Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the
rational structure can be revealed by those in the know,
like yourself.
Deadrat
> On Nov 24, 1:17锟絧m, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:ee2cab48-c716-4b9e-bb3a
> -ee2ab2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> >> > Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance
>> >> > from each citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not
>> >> > in the Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to
>> >> > put it there using bad case law already decided.
>>
>> >> My argument is based on examining Supreme Court precedent. 锟絋his
>> >> may or
>> > 锟絤ay
>> >> not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like
>> >> it) but it
>> >> is certainly controlling case law. 锟絋he Court may or may not
>> >> decide to change that precedent, but for right now mandated
>> >> medical insurance falls within the Constitutional power of
>> >> Congress.
>>
>> > No, SCOTUS would be making new constitutional law by placing
>> > ownership of a product as a condition of U.S. citizenship (perhaps
>> > even beyond that in making it a requirement for resident aliens).
>>
>> Sorry, but nothing in the current health insurance bills makes US
>> citizenship contingent on carrying insurance.
>>
>
> I'm sorry for myself that I thought for little while there that you
> might not be some Fenton-Soros troll bot, but I was wrong. Anyone who
> says that fines and imprisonment [*] for anyone not carrying a
> government approved health insurance plan is not making U.S.
> citizenship contingent on carrying health insurance is a lying
> propagandist for the socialists.
I realize that the following suggestion will be alien to you, but how
about trying to form a counter-argument based on evidence and logic
instead of insults?
Otherwise, "propagandist for the socialists" just means someone you're
having an argument with; "lying propagandist for the socialists" just
means someone you're losing an argument to.
<snip/>
> but a tax on
> individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular insurance
> policies is like a Bill of Attainder
Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no resemblance
to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a punishment *imposed*
by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small class of
individuals.
> to punish without benefit of a trial,
When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial. Please try
it and let us know how it works out.
> and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
Just like all other law breaking.
> for not
> having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should they
> manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS harassment
> techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved insurance policy.
I understand that you don't like the health-insurance reform bills. But
that's no reason to make up a private language. You don't lose your
citizenship for not paying your taxes. Citizenship has an operative
meaning under the law. A tax is not a legal punishment, and penalties
imposed by a court for breaking the law are not attainder.
Deadrat
news:8df3d52f-99e4-4f04...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 2:00�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:b3659a3c-fee6-4471-8d5
> 0-889a2...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > To summarize:
>>
>> > A rational analysis of the proposed bill vis-a-vis the
>> > Constitution is irrelevant because the Constitution is
>> > whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme
>> > Court does not proceed by rational analysis of the
>> > Constitution, as _Gonzales_v_Raich shows. �If a
>> > person growing marijuana strictly for her own use is
>> > engaging in interstate commerce, then anything
>> > whatever is interstate commerce.
>>
>> But of course, in two decisions, US v Lopez and US v Morrison, the
>> Supreme Court *did* set limits on what could be intersate commerce.
>
> I should have added "if the Supreme Court happens to
> say so" in my last sentence.
But this adds absolutely nothing to your "argument." If the Supreme
Court happens to say so, then it's so. By definition and tradition.
> What I mean is that there
> does not appear to be any rational structure to the
> Supreme Court's decisions on the power to regulate
> interstate commerce.
What you should have said is that there does not appear *to you* to be
any rational basis.
>> > The real basis of the Court's decisions is not obvious
>> > to superficial observation,
>>
>> It's certainly not obvious to ignoramuses.
>
> Well, go ahead and give us the rationale. How can
> we analyze a bill which rests on the interstate
> commerce power so that we can determine whether
> the Supreme Court will find it constitutional?
The standard is set, or at least reiterated, by US v Lopez. The activity
in question must use the "channels" or "instrumentalities" of interstate
commerce, or substantially affects interstate commerce. Under Wickard v
Filburn, the measure of substantiality is not the magnitude of the
individual's action, but that of the aggregate effect were the action in
question be available to everyone. Wickard allows the regulation of
local, noncommercial activity as long as that activity affects interstate
commerce. US v Morrison requires the activity to be not only substantial
but direct. It seems to me that this raises the bar for the regulation
of noncommercial activities.
Thus standing around with a loaded gun in your pants doesn't qualify, and
neither does beating up your girlfriend. But presumably, shooting
truckers or pimping in the so-called white slave trade, would.
Is this really a point of contention for health insurance? A commercial
activity is the production or consumption of some good or the provision
or engagement of some service. Are you really arguing that underwriting
and buying health insurance isn't a commercial activity? The bills in
question seek to restructure an entire business sector, from a
monopolistic and discretionary operation to one that is competitive and
universal. Do you find this doesn't fall under the umbrella of
interstate commerce? The restructure doesn't work without mandatory
participation. In other words, if everyone were allowed to refuse
insurance, in other words to make Filburn's claim of immunity from
regulation, then insurance companies would find themselves insuring
mostly the sick, making their business untenable. Isn't this a clear
example of an activity that directly and substantially affects the
commerce of health insurance?
> We ignoramuses would like to know.
I realize that (you think) you're being ironic, but in my experience
ignoramuses almost never want to know.
>
>> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
>> > common sense. �An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
>>
>> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court
>> decisions, but
>> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does
>> not make them irrational.
>
> Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the
> rational structure can be revealed by those in the know,
> like yourself.
I understand that you're being contemptuous of me. Ignoramuses often
retreat to contempt. But it's not so much that I'm "in the know."
After all, I'm not a lawyer. But I have taken the time to read and read
about the cases that define the powers of Congress with regard to
interstate commerce. You haven't. But tell me, what don't you
understand of what I posted above?
It's certainly possible to dispute the rationale of the decisions. After
all, Gonzales v Raich was 5-4. These things are not amenable to
mathematical proof or experimental verification. They are part of a
messy, social, human system. It's certainly possible to dispute the
wisdom of the decisions. Disastrous consequences may flow from them.
But these are different issues. To deny any "rational structure" to the
law as it stands is ignorance.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:e0b67320-a386-4a84...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >> innews:ee2cab48-c716-4b9e-bb3a
>
> >> >> > Your entire argument consists of: "mandate medical insurance
> >> >> > from each citizen under penalty of fine and imprisonment" is not
> >> >> > in the Constitution, therefore it is up to the federal courts to
> >> >> > put it there using bad case law already decided.
>
> >> >> may or
> >> > may
> >> >> not be "bad case law," (which largely means that you don't like
> >> >> it) but it
> >> >> decide to change that precedent, but for right now mandated
> >> >> medical insurance falls within the Constitutional power of
> >> >> Congress.
>
> >> > No, SCOTUS would be making new constitutional law by placing
> >> > ownership of a product as a condition of U.S. citizenship (perhaps
> >> > even beyond that in making it a requirement for resident aliens).
>
> >> Sorry, but nothing in the current health insurance bills makes US
> >> citizenship contingent on carrying insurance.
>
> > I'm sorry for myself that I thought for little while there that you
> > might not be some Fenton-Soros troll bot, but I was wrong. Anyone who
> > says that fines and imprisonment [*] for anyone not carrying a
> > government approved health insurance plan is not making U.S.
> > citizenship contingent on carrying health insurance is a lying
> > propagandist for the socialists.
>
> I realize that the following suggestion will be alien to you, but how
> about trying to form a counter-argument based on evidence and logic
> instead of insults?
One defining characterisitc of the troll bot you are is that not a
single post passes from you containing no insults. That is how Fenton-
Soros propagandists operate. At least, the whole calling any
opposition "racist" has died down.
> <snip/>
>
> > but a tax on
> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular insurance
> > policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>
> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no resemblance
> to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a punishment *imposed*
> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small class of
> individuals.
>
> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>
> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial. Please try
> it and let us know how it works out.
>
There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal protection in a
law that singles out individuals who choose to not participate in a
particular commerce for whatever reason they may have. It is also not
an issue of free-rider on government services because those
individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>
> Just like all other law breaking.
>
> > for not
> > having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should they
> > manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS harassment
> > techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved insurance policy.
>
> I understand that you don't like the health-insurance reform bills. But
> that's no reason to make up a private language. You don't lose your
> citizenship for not paying your taxes.
You will lose your full citizenship rights for not participating in a
commerce in which you do not wish to particpate. That is the same as
making owning a government-approved medical insurance policy as
requirement of citizenship. You can fob off the penalities, fines and
imprisonment as a mere function of tax law all you want (and these tax
provsions are specifically being changed for the purpose of
enforcement of mandated health insurance by the Bill), but there is no
punishable tax infringement without a prior rmandate to engage in a
particular form of commerce that one may find objectionable or even
personally financially ruinous [This will be the case in 50-64 in age
at incomes 32-45k] Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that
commerce be coerced into (and not forbidden from). It is *not* the
same legally to forbid a business transaction as to coerce a business
transaction.
Joseph K.
Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
income for the general use of the gov't.
*Anarcissie*
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:32:54 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
> >The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
> >impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
> >and according to income (16th Amendment). So
> >Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
> >spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
> >common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
> >whatever one wants). What I thought was unusual was
> >imposing a forced payment from one private party to
> >another.
>
> Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
> insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
> workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
> That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
> income for the general use of the gov't.
Well, according to Deadrat, the Supreme Court will
have no trouble extending something, probably the
interstate commerce clause, to cover this -- if they
feel like it. I am now waiting for the calculus that
will enable even us ignoramuses to predict what
they will do. But a rational mapping of the bill into
Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
demonstrates.
Deadrat
> On Nov 24, 7:14�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:e0b67320-a386-4a84-ae7e
> -2e7e0b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
The worst I've called you is "ignoramus." This isn't a personal insult,
but a comment on the demonstrable state of your knowledge.
By the way, a troll is someone who posts things he really doesn't believe
just to stir controversy. If I'm a troll, I must be the first sincere
troll. And you can check everything I tell you.
>> <snip/>
>>
>> > but a tax on
>> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular insurance
>> > policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>>
>> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no
>> resemblance to a bill of attainder." �A bill of attainder is a
>> punishment *imposed*
> �
>> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small class
>> of individuals.
>>
>> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>>
>> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial. �Please
>> try it and let us know how it works out.
>
> There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal protection in a
> law that singles out individuals who choose to not participate in a
> particular commerce for whatever reason they may have.
Do you understand yet why it's not an act of attainder?
Neither is it an equal protection issue, because the law doesn't single
out any class of persons. It applies to everyone.
You have assumed that because you oppose the policy, then it must be
illegal.
> It is also not
> an issue of free-rider on government services because those
> individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
>
>> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>>
>> Just like all other law breaking.
>>
>> > for not
>> > having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should they
>> > manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS harassment
>> > techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved insurance policy.
>>
>> I understand that you don't like the health-insurance reform bills.
>> But
>> that's no reason to make up a private language. �You don't lose your
>> citizenship for not paying your taxes.
>
> You will lose your full citizenship rights for not participating in a
> commerce in which you do not wish to particpate.
Oh, nonsense. They'll just attach your bank account.
> That is the same as
> making owning a government-approved medical insurance policy as
> requirement of citizenship. You can fob off the penalities, fines and
> imprisonment as a mere function of tax law all you want
Fob off? That's what they are.
> (and these tax
> provsions are specifically being changed for the purpose of
> enforcement of mandated health insurance by the Bill), but there is no
> punishable tax infringement without a prior rmandate to engage in a
> particular form of commerce that one may find objectionable or even
> personally financially ruinous [This will be the case in 50-64 in age
> at incomes 32-45k]
> Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that
> commerce be coerced into (and not forbidden from).
Are you serious? Because that's not how things work. SCOTUS has no
advisory powers. The bill isn't even law yet. SCOTUS has not had an
opportunity to review it: it has to become law and then be challenged in
federal court.
But universal conscription is legal. With an exception for conscience
(i.e., pacifists). Same provision is in the Sentate bill (i.e., for
Christian Scientists and the like).
> It is *not* the
> same legally to forbid a business transaction as to coerce a business
> transaction.
So what?
Deadrat
99c3-dc6...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 9:03�pm, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:32:54 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
>> >The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
>> >impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
>> >and according to income (16th Amendment). �So
>> >Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
>> >spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
>> >common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
>> >whatever one wants). �What I thought was unusual was
>> >imposing a forced payment from one private party to
>> >another.
>>
>> Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
>> insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
>> workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
>> That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
>> income for the general use of the gov't.
>
> Well, according to Deadrat, the Supreme Court will
> have no trouble extending something, probably the
> interstate commerce clause, to cover this -- if they
> feel like it.
If the Supreme Court upholds the law, it won't have to extend anything,
as the law fits neatly into precedent.
> I am now waiting for the calculus that
> will enable even us ignoramuses to predict what
> they will do.
Done.
See Message-ID: <teadnX7dlPopFJHW...@giganews.com>
misc.legal: 668942.
Let me know what's still confusing you.
> But a rational mapping of the bill into
> Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
> demonstrates.
Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:985d7115-0d0b-4d08...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> >> > but a tax on
> >> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular insurance
> >> > policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>
> >> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no
> >> resemblance to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a
> >> punishment *imposed*
> >
> >> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small class
> >> of individuals.
>
The punishment imposed here is a penalty for not engaging in a
particular form of commerce.
> >> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>
> >> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial. Please
> >> try it and let us know how it works out.
>
> > There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal protection in a
> > law that singles out individuals who choose to not participate in a
> > particular commerce for whatever reason they may have.
>
> Do you understand yet why it's not an act of attainder?
>
Suppose a man chooses to walk to work rather than ride a bus, but the
government is now saying everyone must ride the bus and coerces the
man to ride the bus by threatening him with increased income taxes if
he does not take the bus to work. Act of attainder can apply to a
class of individuals if those individuals behave in the exact same
way. The penalty tax against receivers of AIG bonuses would have been
an unconstitutional act of attainder against AIG bonus receivers,
there also being an additional unconstitutional ex post facto issue.
> Neither is it an equal protection issue, because the law doesn't single
> out any class of persons. It applies to everyone.
>
Equal protection can apply to a class of people who refuse medical
treatment and prior insurance to cover medical treatment for any
reason. There actually has been an issue of whether the Bills would
cover Christian Science prayer healing sessions, and if it were, that
opens a can of worms on the First Amendment and the federal government
for the first time actually giving preference of one religion over
another. Equal protection can also apply to the class that refuses
to consider that their medical information be stored in a government-
accessible data bank.
> You have assumed that because you oppose the policy, then it must be
> illegal.
>
Coercive policy by the federal government always has to be closely
scrutinized.
>
>
>
>
> > It is also not
> > an issue of free-rider on government services because those
> > individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
>
> >> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>
> >> Just like all other law breaking.
>
> >> > for not
> >> > having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should they
> >> > manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS harassment
> >> > techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved insurance policy.
>
> >> I understand that you don't like the health-insurance reform bills.
> >> But
> >> that's no reason to make up a private language. You don't lose your
> >> citizenship for not paying your taxes.
>
You lose certain CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS such as being locked up for not
paying taxes, and the tax code here is being used to coerce
individuals and classes of individuals into doing something they do
not want to do. This is not the same as a providing a government
function and then requiring a tax for that function. The 2.5% special
income tax (House) or flat rate $950 per individual or up to $3800 per
family (Senate) penalty is not a fee-for-service tax but clearly a
coercive instrument that initiates the IRS into a policing force to
further fine and imprison people who steadfastly refuse to participate
in a particular commerce. The ONLY way for an otherwise law-abiding,
gainfully employed person to avoid this is to remove himself from
territorial U.S. and renounce his citizenship or die. The fact that
whole classes of people cannot be reached through this coercive
scheme, like unemployed vagrants, is immaterial but certainly makes a
mockery of the intent of the Bills to provide insurance to all those
who do not have it whether they want it or not.
> > You will lose your full citizenship rights for not participating in a
> > commerce in which you do not wish to particpate.
>
> Oh, nonsense. They'll just attach your bank account.
>
Which is losing a citizenship right of not having garnishment when one
has done nothing financially or contractually improper to or against
another individual or business enterprise. These Bills restructure the
IRS to coerce people not just to pay income taxes but to participate
in a particular commerce. You really are saying that just because the
penalty for non-compliance for compulsory commerce (the special 2.5%
tax or $950 fine) is called a tax, it is a tax in nature. The initial
penalty is not a tax but a fine imposed for not engaging in a mandated
health insurance program. The initial federal government infraction
against the Constitution is the mandate for a particular commerce. In
essence, even without overt coercion through penalties, a mandate to
engage in a particular commerce is unconstitutional by the word and
intent of the constitution -- not ever having been amended by judicial
review in case law. All interstate commerce decisions have involved
stopping or altering people from engaging in commerce and not
mandating that they do engage in commerce. Ollie's barbecue
(Katzenbach v. McClung) was forced into a kind of conduct for an
existing business or it could cease doing business -- which it did.
The Katzenbach decision does not force anybody into a restaurant
business.
> > Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that
> > commerce be coerced into (and not forbidden from).
>
> Are you serious?
Your argument has been that there is judicial precedent in
constitutional case law, though certainly not in the enumerated powers
in the Constitution, re: Filburn v. Wickburn and Gonzalez v. Raich.
Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that commerce be coerced
into (and not forbidden from).
>
> But universal conscription is legal. With an exception for conscience
> (i.e., pacifists). Same provision is in the Sentate bill (i.e., for
> Christian Scientists and the like).
>
Conscription I dealt with in part of what you called a "rant" in one
of my earlier posts to which you did not reply except to call it a
"rant". So now it is important to you all of sudden? And the
provision in the Senate bill still mandates government-approved health
insurance for Christian Scientists but now their "prayer treatments"
would be considered allowable medical expenses. Next, of course,
Scientology psychiatric treatments, spiritualist ancestor advice, voo-
doo . . . so long as everyone buys mandated health insurance
> > It is *not* the
> > same legally to forbid a business transaction as to coerce a business
> > transaction.
>
> So what?
It is *not* the same legally to forbid a business transaction as it
is to coerce a business transaction. Please cite a SCOTUS decision
Deadrat
> On Nov 24, 10:04 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:985d7115-0d0b-4d08...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>
>> >> > but a tax on
>> >> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular
>> >> > insurance policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>>
>> >> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no
>> >> resemblance to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a
>> >> punishment *imposed*
>> >
>> >> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small
>> >> class of individuals.
> The punishment imposed here is a penalty for not engaging in a
> particular form of commerce.
For attainder, the punishment must be imposed by the legislature (without
prosecution by the executive or trial by the judiciary) and the
punishment must directed at specific individuals by name or membership in
a small class.
Really, what don't you understand about this?
>> >> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>>
>> >> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial.
>> >> Please try it and let us know how it works out.
>>
>> > There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal protection
>> > in a law that singles out individuals who choose to not participate
>> > in a particular commerce for whatever reason they may have.
>>
>> Do you understand yet why it's not an act of attainder?
>>
>
> Suppose a man chooses to walk to work rather than ride a bus, but the
> government is now saying everyone must ride the bus and coerces the
> man to ride the bus by threatening him with increased income taxes if
> he does not take the bus to work. Act of attainder can apply to a
> class of individuals if those individuals behave in the exact same
> way.
No, it can't. Attainder requires that the individual be named or
selected based on membership.
> The penalty tax against receivers of AIG bonuses would have been
> an unconstitutional act of attainder against AIG bonus receivers,
> there also being an additional unconstitutional ex post facto issue.
You just compound your ignorance, don't you? Taxes are not criminal
penalities and as unfair as it is, taxes may be imposed after the fact.
>> Neither is it an equal protection issue, because the law doesn't
>> single out any class of persons. It applies to everyone.
>>
>
> Equal protection can apply to a class of people who refuse medical
> treatment and prior insurance to cover medical treatment for any
> reason.
No, it can't. I was going to explain why not, but since this is your
claim, I prefer that you back it up. Please explain why equal protection
would apply. Show your work. Be sure to mention the "rational basis"
test.
> There actually has been an issue of whether the Bills would
> cover Christian Science prayer healing sessions, and if it were, that
> opens a can of worms on the First Amendment and the federal government
> for the first time actually giving preference of one religion over
> another. Equal protection can also apply to the class that refuses
> to consider that their medical information be stored in a government-
> accessible data bank.
No, it can't. Your claim; same rules as above.
>> You have assumed that because you oppose the policy, then it must be
>> illegal.
> Coercive policy by the federal government always has to be closely
> scrutinized.
Finally, something that I can agree with. But it doesn't help your case
to misapply legal doctrines.
>> > It is also not
>> > an issue of free-rider on government services because those
>> > individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
>>
>> >> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>>
>> >> Just like all other law breaking.
>>
>> >> > for not
>> >> > having paid this penalty tax (avoiding the attainder) should
>> >> > they manage to not pay the penalty tax (after the usual IRS
>> >> > harassment techniques and garnishment) or buy an approved
>> >> > insurance policy.
>>
>> >> I understand that you don't like the health-insurance reform
>> >> bills. But
>> >> that's no reason to make up a private language. You don't lose
>> >> your citizenship for not paying your taxes.
>>
>
> You lose certain CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS such as being locked up for not
> paying taxes,
Sometimes. But criminals are still citizens.
> and the tax code here is being used to coerce
> individuals and classes of individuals into doing something they do
> not want to do.
So what?
> This is not the same as a providing a government
> function and then requiring a tax for that function. The 2.5% special
> income tax (House) or flat rate $950 per individual or up to $3800 per
> family (Senate) penalty is not a fee-for-service tax but clearly a
> coercive instrument that initiates the IRS into a policing force to
> further fine and imprison people who steadfastly refuse to participate
> in a particular commerce.
I understand that you don't like the health insurance reform bills and
that you'd rather not pay money that the law would require you to pay.
But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional, and
so far, you're just making stuff up.
> The ONLY way for an otherwise law-abiding,
> gainfully employed person to avoid this is to remove himself from
> territorial U.S. and renounce his citizenship or die.
Sometimes removing yourself from the US won't work either.
But this is true of any law you don't want to obey.
> The fact that
> whole classes of people cannot be reached through this coercive
> scheme, like unemployed vagrants, is immaterial but certainly makes a
> mockery of the intent of the Bills to provide insurance to all those
> who do not have it whether they want it or not.
This may be true. It has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the
bills.
>
>> > You will lose your full citizenship rights for not participating in
>> > a commerce in which you do not wish to particpate.
>>
>> Oh, nonsense. They'll just attach your bank account.
> Which is losing a citizenship right of not having garnishment when one
> has done nothing financially or contractually improper to or against
> another individual or business enterprise.
There is no right not to obey the law.
> These Bills restructure the
> IRS to coerce people not just to pay income taxes but to participate
> in a particular commerce.
Let's grant that. Let's even grant that it's bad policy. Now show by
legal argument that it's unconstitutional.
> You really are saying that just because the
> penalty for non-compliance for compulsory commerce (the special 2.5%
> tax or $950 fine) is called a tax, it is a tax in nature. The initial
> penalty is not a tax but a fine imposed for not engaging in a mandated
> health insurance program.
If it's a "tax in nature," then the courts will probably treat it as a
tax. John Marshall ruled that the law prohibits things, not names.
> The initial federal government infraction
> against the Constitution is the mandate for a particular commerce. In
> essence, even without overt coercion through penalties, a mandate to
> engage in a particular commerce is unconstitutional by the word and
> intent of the constitution -- not ever having been amended by judicial
> review in case law.
This is your claim, which you make over and over. But you provide no
evidence. I don't think you know enough to decide what the word of the
Constitution means or what its "intent" is. If you want to prove your
case, you're going to have to argue from the relevant Supreme Court cases
about the commerce clause. Why not give that a try?
> All interstate commerce decisions have involved
> stopping or altering people from engaging in commerce and not
> mandating that they do engage in commerce. Ollie's barbecue
> (Katzenbach v. McClung) was forced into a kind of conduct for an
> existing business or it could cease doing business -- which it did.
> The Katzenbach decision does not force anybody into a restaurant
> business.
Altering people? Never mind.
Whether or not the current bills are novel isn't the basis for a
Constitutional argument. If the bills fall outside the boundaries of
what's permissible under the commerce clause -- e.g., they attempt to
regulate non-commercial behavior -- then you've got a case. Is that what
you're saying? So far, you're just whining.
>> > Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that
>> > commerce be coerced into (and not forbidden from).
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
> Your argument has been that there is judicial precedent in
> constitutional case law, though certainly not in the enumerated powers
> in the Constitution, re: Filburn v. Wickburn and Gonzalez v. Raich.
> Please cite a SCOTUS decision that requires that commerce be coerced
> into (and not forbidden from).
Again, you're operating under a serious misconception. Laws do not need
Supreme Court validation before they are considered valid. They are
presumed valid until overturned.
>> But universal conscription is legal. With an exception for
>> conscience (i.e., pacifists). Same provision is in the Sentate bill
>> (i.e., for Christian Scientists and the like).
>>
>
> Conscription I dealt with in part of what you called a "rant" in one
> of my earlier posts to which you did not reply except to call it a
> "rant". So now it is important to you all of sudden? And the
> provision in the Senate bill still mandates government-approved health
> insurance for Christian Scientists but now their "prayer treatments"
> would be considered allowable medical expenses. Next, of course,
> Scientology psychiatric treatments, spiritualist ancestor advice, voo-
> doo . . . so long as everyone buys mandated health insurance
Sorry, I shouldn't have called your posts a rant. I should have
explained why they're not effective legal arguments. Christian Science
"treatments" are indeed problematical, but they don't really have
anything to do with the power of Congress to mandate insurance.
>> > It is *not* the
>> > same legally to forbid a business transaction as to coerce a
>> > business transaction.
>>
>> So what?
>
> It is *not* the same legally to forbid a business transaction as it
> is to coerce a business transaction. Please cite a SCOTUS decision
> that requires that commerce be coerced into (and not forbidden from).
It may not be the same "legallly." It may even be novel law. That is
not enough to make it unconstitutional. There is no need to find a
SCOTUS decision in advance to sanction a particular law. I claim that as
novel as the health insurance bills may be, they still fall within the
bounds of regulation of interstate commerce. Feel free to examine the
SCOTUS cases that set the boundaries.
If you wish to argue that the bills are on their face unconstitutional,
it is you who must come up with a SCOTUS case that makes them so.
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ac4c010d-ed4c-460c-
> 99c3-dc67616b8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> misc.legal: 668942.
>
> Let me know what's still confusing you.
Google can't find it. If you give the subject line and the
date, I might have better luck. The article number you give
is probably specific to giganews, which I don't use.
> > But a rational mapping of the bill into
> > Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
> > demonstrates.
>
> Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
Well, in regard to _Gonzales_, I'd say I'm paying
attention to the lack of it, especially in light of the
other cases you mention which do limit the interstate
commerce power. But I want to examine your
formula, which may resolve the apparent
contradiction. Or not.
Deadrat
news:d58ff998-09e6-4cb6...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
Not to worry. With a few edits, I'll repost here:
<repost>
> Well, go ahead and give us the rationale. How can we analyze a bill
> which rests on the interstate commerce power so that we can determine
> whether the Supreme Court will find it constitutional?
The standard is set, or at least reiterated, by US v Lopez. The
activity in question must use the "channels" or "instrumentalities" of
interstate commerce, or substantially affect interstate commerce. Under
Wickard v Filburn, the measure of substantiality is not the magnitude of
the individual's action, but that of the aggregate effect were the
action in question be available to everyone. Wickard allows the
regulation of local, noncommercial activity as long as that activity
affects interstate commerce. US v Morrison requires the activity to be
not only substantial but direct. It seems to me that this raises the
bar for the regulation of noncommercial activities.
Thus standing around with a loaded gun in your pants doesn't qualify,
and neither does beating up your girlfriend. But presumably, shooting
truckers or pimping in the so-called white slave trade, would.
Is this really a point of contention for health insurance? A commercial
activity is the production or consumption of some good or the provision
or engagement of some service. Are you really arguing that underwriting
and buying health insurance isn't a commercial activity? The bills in
question seek to restructure an entire business sector, from a
monopolistic and discretionary operation to one that is competitive and
universal. Do you find this doesn't fall under the umbrella of
interstate commerce? The restructure doesn't work without mandatory
participation. If everyone were allowed to refuse insurance, in other
words to make Filburn's claim of immunity from regulation, then
insurance companies would find themselves insuring mostly the sick,
making their business untenable. Isn't this a clear example of an
activity that directly and substantially affects the commerce of health
insurance?
> We ignoramuses would like to know.
I realize that (you think) you're being ironic, but in my experience
ignoramuses almost never want to know.
>> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
>> > common sense. �An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
>>
>> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court
>> decisions, but
>> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does
>> not make them irrational.
>
> Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the rational
> structure can be revealed by those in the know, like yourself.
It's not so much that I'm "in the know." After all, I'm not a lawyer.
But I have taken the time to read and read about the cases that define
the powers of Congress with regard to interstate commerce. You haven't.
But tell me, what don't you understand of what I posted above?
It's certainly possible to dispute the rationale of the decisions.
After all, Gonzales v Raich was 5-4. These things are not amenable to
mathematical proof or experimental verification. They are part of a
messy, social, human system. It's certainly possible to dispute the
wisdom of the decisions. Disastrous consequences may flow from them.
But these are different issues. To deny any "rational structure" to the
law as it stands is ignorance.
</repost>
>> > But a rational mapping of the bill into
>> > Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
>> > demonstrates.
>>
>> Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
>
> Well, in regard to _Gonzales_, I'd say I'm paying attention to the
> lack of it, especially in light of the other cases you mention which
> do limit the interstate commerce power. But I want to examine your
> formula, which may resolve the apparent contradiction. Or not.
I know you probably didn't expect a quiz, but now that you (presumably)
understand things, see how you do:
1. A home owner has a dispute with a seller. The contract contains a
mandatory arbitration clause. The buyer sues, the seller files a motion to
compel arbitration, which the buyer opposes citing California rules of
civil procedure, which do not preclude the buyer's suit. The seller cites
the Federal Arbitration Act, which would trump California rules if the
commerce clause is properly invoked. Trial court rules for the buyer;
seller appeals, citing 5 major areas of the home using out of state
suppliers. Did the Appeals Court affirm or reverse?
2. The plaintiffs leased a car to a customer who got into an accident with
the defendant. The defendant sued the plaintiff for personal injury under a
Florida law using a "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine. The plaintiffs
claimed they were immune from suit under a federal statute providing
immunity to car rental businesses. The defendant said the federal law was
unconstitutional overreach of the commerce clause into tort liability. Did
the federal court agree? (Hint: consider whether the legal issue concerns
an instrumentality of commerce, namely the car.)
3. A man was convicted of owning body armor under a federal law prohibiting
felons from owning such items "sold or offered for sale in interstate
commerce." He appealed. Did the Appeals Court affirm or reverse?
Dan Clore
realize that your interlocutors are reading and posting from that group,
don't you? Or do you just want to remove them from the conversation?
Anarcissie
<4oadndHo7NWZtJPW...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > On Nov 24, 10:09�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in
It seems to me that _US_v_Morrison_ and _US_v_Lopez_
both contradict _Filburn_ in that _Filburn_ fails the
directness requirement they propose, as, of course,
does _Gonzales_v_Raich_. All four decisions look
political, rather than logical, to me, that is, they
are based on shifting and often contradictory
political forces. I can expand on that view but it
is probably easy enough to guess what my arguments
would be. As long as we have a contradiction in our
premises (the Constitution and previous decisions
interpreting it) we can come up with a great variety
of contradictory answers.
In the case of regulating medical insurance, I think
one could reasonably argue that medical insurance
is a big business with clear, direct implications for
interstate commerce. However, what I think exceeds
any power granted in the Constitution to the Federal
government is a law forcing all persons to buy
medical insurance regardless of whether they are
engaged in any sort of commerce whatever. Mr. Filburn
at least had the option of not growing wheat, or not
feeding it to his chickens. Congress could, of
course, directly tax the people _per_capita_ or by
income and thereby raise the money to pay for their
medical insurance or medical care on the basis of
pursuing the general welfare and common defense, but I
don't see anything in the Constitution whereby the
Federal government is empowered to compel one set of
private persons, regardless of their economic or other
activity, to do business with another. Even surreal
_Wickard_v_Filburn_ does not make that claim.
> > We ignoramuses would like to know.
>
> I realize that (you think) you're being ironic, but in my experience
> ignoramuses almost never want to know.
I assure you that I'm genuinely ignorant about the
arcana of Constitutional law. However, it generally
seems to make some kind of sense, and the
constitutional questions about the present "health
care" bill piqued my interest because I figured some
kind of really elaborate twisting would be necessary
to kosher the pig in this case.
> >> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
> >> > common sense. �An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
> >>
> >> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court
> >> decisions, but
> >> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does
> >> not make them irrational.
> >
> > Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the rational
> > structure can be revealed by those in the know, like yourself.
>
> It's not so much that I'm "in the know." After all, I'm not a lawyer.
> But I have taken the time to read and read about the cases that define
> the powers of Congress with regard to interstate commerce. You haven't.
> But tell me, what don't you understand of what I posted above?
>
> It's certainly possible to dispute the rationale of the decisions.
> After all, Gonzales v Raich was 5-4. These things are not amenable to
> mathematical proof or experimental verification. They are part of a
> messy, social, human system. It's certainly possible to dispute the
> wisdom of the decisions. Disastrous consequences may flow from them.
>
> But these are different issues. To deny any "rational structure" to the
> law as it stands is ignorance.
Actually, _Gonzales_v_Raich_ was 6-3, at least
according to Wikipedia. Scalia wrote a separate
concurrence which to me appears even more tortured
than the majority opinion.
When I say "rational" I do not mean that the justices
are behaving irrationally with regard to life choices
or their jobs in general. The may be, or not. I mean
there is no way of starting with the Constitution and
subsequent decisions and logically producing an answer
as to the constitutionality of a proposed law, like the
"health care bill" we're discussing. _Gonzales_ shows
that the territory of interstate commerce has no
necessary limit, but _Morrison_ and _Lopez_ show
that the S.C. may impose one if they feel like it.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-6D65A...@reader1.panix.com:
Filburn does not fail the directness requriement as Filburn deals with
commerce, goods or services. The "goods" for Filburn was wheat.
> as, of course, does _Gonzales_v_Raich_.
Same for Gonzales v Raich. The goods is marijuana.
> All four decisions look political, rather than logical, to me, that
> is, they are based on shifting and often contradictory
> political forces. I can expand on that view but it
> is probably easy enough to guess what my arguments
> would be.
I can't tell what your arguments are. I doubt that they're based on any
examination of commerce-clause jurisprudence, though.
> As long as we have a contradiction in our
> premises (the Constitution and previous decisions
> interpreting it) we can come up with a great variety
> of contradictory answers.
>
> In the case of regulating medical insurance, I think
> one could reasonably argue that medical insurance
> is a big business with clear, direct implications for
> interstate commerce. However, what I think exceeds
> any power granted in the Constitution to the Federal
> government is a law forcing all persons to buy
> medical insurance regardless of whether they are
> engaged in any sort of commerce whatever.
I know what you think. What you haven't told me is why you think that
based on case law.
> Mr. Filburn
> at least had the option of not growing wheat, or not
> feeding it to his chickens. Congress could, of
> course, directly tax the people _per_capita_ or by
> income and thereby raise the money to pay for their
> medical insurance or medical care on the basis of
> pursuing the general welfare and common defense, but I
> don't see anything in the Constitution whereby the
> Federal government is empowered to compel one set of
> private persons, regardless of their economic or other
> activity, to do business with another.
This is one of your basic misconceptions, one that I can't seem to
disabuse you of. You're looking for a list of exhaustive, enumerated
*actions* in the Constitution that Congress may take. When you don't
find ordering people to buy health insurance in the list, then you
conclude it's unconstitutional. But there's no such list. What there is
a list of general *powers*, and whether a particular action is
Constitutional depends on whether that action falls under one of the
powers, according to case law.
Does mandating health insurance affect interstate commerce in a direct
way? I'd have to say yes, since insurance is a commercial service. Does
allowing individuals the option of not having coverage have a substantial
affect *in the aggregate* Again, I'd have to say yes, since the current
schemes rely on universal coverage to change the business model.
> Even surreal _Wickard_v_Filburn_ does not make that claim.
Wickard v Filburn is not surreal. You may not like the result, but
that's different. Ask the two questions about wheat production that I
asked about health insurance.
I stand corrected.
>
> When I say "rational" I do not mean that the justices
> are behaving irrationally with regard to life choices
> or their jobs in general. The may be, or not. I mean
> there is no way of starting with the Constitution and
> subsequent decisions and logically producing an answer
> as to the constitutionality of a proposed law, like the
> "health care bill" we're discussing. _Gonzales_ shows
> that the territory of interstate commerce has no
> necessary limit, but _Morrison_ and _Lopez_ show
> that the S.C. may impose one if they feel like it.
I'm kinda stuck here. I've tried to explain the reasoning that goes into
interstate commerce cases. You neither ask questions about nor make any
challenges to the explanation. You simply keep reiterating your opinion
that the whole thing is inexplicable beyond the personal feelings of
judges and justices.
Case in point. I've given you three examples from actual court cases.
Even if you believe the results make for bad social policy, you should be
able to take my explanation (or one of your choosing from your own
research) and apply the reasoning given to figure out what the rulings
were. But you didn't try.
Do you understand why I say that in my experience ignoramuses really
don't want to know?
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> Why do you keep removing alt.anarchism from the follow-ups? You do
> realize that your interlocutors are reading and posting from that group,
> don't you? Or do you just want to remove them from the conversation?
Sorry, not intentional. Xnews blanked out the follow-ups and I didn't
notice.
Charles Bell
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:6fe9a578-4abe-43af...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 24, 10:04 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >> innews:985d7115-0d0b-4d08...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.c
> >> om:
>
> >> >> > but a tax on
> >> >> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular
> >> >> > insurance policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>
> >> >> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no
> >> >> resemblance to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a
> >> >> punishment *imposed*
>
> >> >> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small
> >> >> class of individuals.
> > The punishment imposed here is a penalty for not engaging in a
> > particular form of commerce.
>
> For attainder, the punishment must be imposed by the legislature (without
> prosecution by the executive or trial by the judiciary) and the
> punishment must directed at specific individuals by name or membership in
> a small class.
>
> Really, what don't you understand about this?
>
Yes, I said exactly that above. Why don't you answer how it is not
like an act of attainder against a class of people? Class = those who
refuse to by a product or engage in a particular commerce; punishment
without benefit of trial = $950 fine or 2.5% of income. That you say
that the fine or special tax is just a tax is materially wrong because
the tax is not a tax imposed equally among all for the purpose of
revenue but applied to a particular class as punishment for not
behaving in a particular way.
> >> >> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>
> >> >> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial.
> >> >> Please try it and let us know how it works out.
>
The fines are imposed as a way to throw the enforcement to the IRS,
rather than by the criminal-justice system, to avoid due process in
prosecuting the "crime" of not having medical insurance. The IRS is
being fundamentally changed by the Bills specifically for this reason
and no other reason -- to convict a class on individuals without
benefit of trial. That is what makes it like an act of attainder.
> >> > There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal protection
> >> > in a law that singles out individuals who choose to not participate
> >> > in a particular commerce for whatever reason they may have.
>
> >> Do you understand yet why it's not an act of attainder?
>
It is like an act of attainder because it singles out individuals and
punishes them without due process. The fact that it is to be hidden
within tax enforcement as though the punishment originated as a tax
evasion rather than an evasion of a penalty for not behaving in a
particular way, which it really is, just emphasizes the lack of equal
protection and due process through the criminal justice system, for
the act of being without health insurance is being criminalized but
the crime is not being punished as a crime but cast surreptitiously as
a tax, which it is not..
> > Suppose a man chooses to walk to work rather than ride a bus, but the
> > government is now saying everyone must ride the bus and coerces the
> > man to ride the bus by threatening him with increased income taxes if
> > he does not take the bus to work. Act of attainder can apply to a
> > class of individuals if those individuals behave in the exact same
> > way.
>
> No, it can't. Attainder requires that the individual be named or
> selected based on membership.
In the ancient definition, as a means to confiscate goods and
property, usually for treason, without benefit of trial, often simply
reversible upon good behavior. Bills of attainder were abused in the
colonies in a different way and that is the present meaning whereby a
class of individuals can be named for punishment without trial. The
Bills in discussion name all individuals who do not buy government-
approved as criminals to be punished by a special tax imposed only on
them without benefit of trial. Any subsequent appeal in the tax
courts would deal with any issue of not paying the penalty tax and not
on the issue of the penalty tax itself. If the Constitution permitted
bills of attainder, government officials could, by law, force the
person attained or punished by legislative act to forfeit his liberty,
property, or income. A law such as the Bills in discussion as enacted
into law punishes *by the mere existence of the law* and executive
administration of the law without judicial process though loss of
income by a specially applied penalty.
>
> > The penalty tax against receivers of AIG bonuses would have been
> > an unconstitutional act of attainder against AIG bonus receivers,
> > there also being an additional unconstitutional ex post facto issue.
>
> You just compound your ignorance, don't you? Taxes are not criminal
> penalities and as unfair as it is, taxes may be imposed after the fact.
>
Punishment for a behavior (lawfully, contractually receiving pay
bonuses at AIG) by the imposition of a tax does not make it any less a
punishment. A tax levied for the specific purpose of engaging in
otherwise lawful behavior is ignoring due process and equal
protection. A tax is not to be imposed on individuals for their
behavior that consists in *not* doing something. Czarist taxes on men
wearing beards (not shaving) is such an act of unequal application of
a law just the same as taxes imposed on individuals not engaging in a
particular commerce (not buying health insurance). What U.S. case law
supports a tax imposed on those not engaging in a particular commerce
and only for that reason? What would keep Congress imposing a tax on
men wearing beards or woman with armpit hair? The only such tax law
applicable to commerce that now exists is tax on *proactive*
commercial engagement, such as a sales tax or so-called luxury tax,
but those who do not buy things are not taxed for *not* buying
things, and never have been, and I would like to see you present
judicial precedent for penalty or tax imposed for *not* doing
something.
> >> Neither is it an equal protection issue, because the law doesn't
> >> single out any class of persons. It applies to everyone.
>
It only applies to people who do not want to buy government-approved
health insurance. Everyone else is exempt. The salient feature is the
punishment for not doing something and the imposition of a punishment
without benefit of a criminal trial. Any subsequent tax-evasion trial
would be on not paying the tax and not on whether one wants to pay the
tax, and there certainly is precedent against winning in that trial.
The issue is on whether a penalty tax imposed for not engaging in
commerce is constitutional either by the Constitution in word and
intent or by case-law. Please make that argument.
> > Equal protection can apply to a class of people who refuse medical
> > treatment and prior insurance to cover medical treatment for any
> > reason.
>
> No, it can't. I was going to explain why not,
. . . But you can't. Explain how any adult can be forced into medical
treatment and then be forced into paying for that treatment through
medical insurance which he has been forced to purchase. Equal
protection applies to coercion against individuals who otherwise are
harming no one but are not treated legally as in the same class as all
other citizens. Refusing a black man access to a water fountain in a
public park cannot be justified by just saying: "Well, the law applies
to everyone."
In spite of its name, the rational-basis test is arbitrary law, and
simply amounts to labeling as constitutional what the federal courts
say is constitutional, so long as the legislature will be proclaimed
as "rational".
> > There actually has been an issue of whether the Bills would
> > cover Christian Science prayer healing sessions, and if it were, that
> > opens a can of worms on the First Amendment and the federal government
> > for the first time actually giving preference of one religion over
> > another. Equal protection can also apply to the class that refuses
> > to consider that their medical information be stored in a government-
> > accessible data bank.
>
Please address how the federal government can involve itself in
positive enforcement of one particular religious belief, i.e., CS
prayer treatment is an effective medical treatment?
>
> >> You have assumed that because you oppose the policy, then it must be
> >> illegal.
> > Coercive policy by the federal government always has to be closely
> > scrutinized.
>
> Finally, something that I can agree with. But it doesn't help your case
> to misapply legal doctrines.
>
Please cite legal precedent for coercion into commercial products or
services.
> >> > It is also not
> >> > an issue of free-rider on government services because those
> >> > individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
>
> >> >> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>
> >> >> Just like all other law breaking.
>
"Law breaking" here defined as actually doing nothing at all.
>
> Sometimes removing yourself from the US won't work either.
>
> But this is true of any law you don't want to obey.
>
You are simply justifying totalitarian law and not defending U.S.
constitutional law.
> > The fact that
> > whole classes of people cannot be reached through this coercive
> > scheme, like unemployed vagrants, is immaterial but certainly makes a
> > mockery of the intent of the Bills to provide insurance to all those
> > who do not have it whether they want it or not.
>
> This may be true. It has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the
> bills.
>
It has to do with equal protection. By being gainfully employed and
establishing financial roots makes one *inherently* vulnerable to
punishment. The Bills, by their very nature, cannot be applied
equally, if only because those who are jobless vagrants (in equal
"need" of medical insurance) cannot be coerced into buying medical
insurance in the same way that employed, tax-paying individuals can
be.
Deadrat
> On Nov 25, 1:37 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:6fe9a578-4abe-43af...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 10:04 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >> innews:985d7115-0d0b-4d08...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroup
>> >> s.c om:
>>
>> >> >> > but a tax on
>> >> >> > individuals used as a penalty for not holding particular
>> >> >> > insurance policies is like a Bill of Attainder
>>
>> >> >> Sure, if by "like a Bill of Attainder," you mean "bearing no
>> >> >> resemblance to a bill of attainder." A bill of attainder is a
>> >> >> punishment *imposed*
>>
>> >> >> by a legislative and aimed at a particular individual or small
>> >> >> class of individuals.
>> > The punishment imposed here is a penalty for not engaging in a
>> > particular form of commerce.
>>
>> For attainder, the punishment must be imposed by the legislature
>> (without prosecution by the executive or trial by the judiciary) and
>> the punishment must directed at specific individuals by name or
>> membership in a small class.
>>
>> Really, what don't you understand about this?
>>
>
>
> Yes, I said exactly that above. Why don't you answer how it is not
> like an act of attainder against a class of people? Class = those who
> refuse to by a product or engage in a particular commerce; punishment
> without benefit of trial = $950 fine or 2.5% of income.
In the first place, a bill of attainder has to essentially name the
individuals who are being punished. For example, "From 2009-2020,
Charles Bell must pay a 10% surcharge on his income tax." Congress can't
get around this restriction by replacing your name with a description so
restrictive that it couldn't be anybody but you. The test here is that
no one voting on the health care bills has in mind any particular names
of people to single out.
Secondly, the punishment must be imposed by the bill of attainder itself
giving the victim no access to judicial relief. It is settled law that
taxes are not a punishment in and of themselves, even if they are
burdensome. And all fines for nonpayment may be challenged in tax court.
This is a matter of legal definition and case law.
What's not clear about it?
> That you say
> that the fine or special tax is just a tax is materially wrong because
> the tax is not a tax imposed equally among all for the purpose of
> revenue but applied to a particular class as punishment for not
> behaving in a particular way.
Taxes do not have to be imposed equally. The progressive income tax is
designed to tax people of different incomes differently. And taxes may
have social purposes other than the neutral collection of revenue. Why
do you think otherwise?
>> >> >> > to punish without benefit of a trial,
>>
>> >> >> When you are arrested for tax evasion, you will get a trial.
>> >> >> Please try it and let us know how it works out.
>>
>
> The fines are imposed as a way to throw the enforcement to the IRS,
> rather than by the criminal-justice system, to avoid due process in
> prosecuting the "crime" of not having medical insurance.
The IRS has administrative procedures that you must use to appeal the
imposition of a fine, but once you have exhausted those procedures, you
may always take your case to tax court. Your statement about due process
is simply and flat-out false.
> The IRS is
> being fundamentally changed by the Bills specifically for this reason
> and no other reason -- to convict a class on individuals without
> benefit of trial. That is what makes it like an act of attainder.
The IRS does not have the authority to convict individuals of anything.
Every action of the IRS may be challenged in a federal court. You are
simply and flat-out wrong on this topic.
>> >> > There is either some act of attainder or lack of equal
>> >> > protection in a law that singles out individuals who choose to
>> >> > not participate in a particular commerce for whatever reason
>> >> > they may have.
>>
>> >> Do you understand yet why it's not an act of attainder?
>>
>
> It is like an act of attainder because it singles out individuals and
> punishes them without due process.
Again. The act does not single out individuals with the specificity
required for a bill of attainder, nor does it deprive anyone of due
process. You may take any dispute with the taxing authorities to a
federal court. You are simply and flat-out wrong about this.
> The fact that it is to be hidden
> within tax enforcement as though the punishment originated as a tax
> evasion rather than an evasion of a penalty for not behaving in a
> particular way, which it really is, just emphasizes the lack of equal
> protection
Please explain why you think you will be denied equal protection of the
law. I don't think you understand this legal term. It does *not* mean
that everyone must be treated identically.
> and due process through the criminal justice system, for
> the act of being without health insurance is being criminalized but
> the crime is not being punished as a crime but cast surreptitiously as
> a tax, which it is not..
Taxes are not punishments under the law. You might as well complain that
the FICA tax punishes people for not having retirement-income insurance.
>
>> > Suppose a man chooses to walk to work rather than ride a bus, but
>> > the government is now saying everyone must ride the bus and coerces
>> > the man to ride the bus by threatening him with increased income
>> > taxes if he does not take the bus to work. Act of attainder can
>> > apply to a class of individuals if those individuals behave in the
>> > exact same way.
>>
>> No, it can't. Attainder requires that the individual be named or
>> selected based on membership.
>
> In the ancient definition, as a means to confiscate goods and
> property, usually for treason, without benefit of trial, often simply
> reversible upon good behavior. Bills of attainder were abused in the
> colonies in a different way and that is the present meaning whereby a
> class of individuals can be named for punishment without trial.
The "ancient definition" and practice is immaterial. The courts have
determined what a modern-day bill of attainder is. Do you understand why
your claims are simply and flat-out wrong?
> The Bills in discussion name all individuals
They name no one. That's the point. If you're right, then you should be
able to list their names. That's what's required for a bill of
attainder.
> who do not buy government-
> approved as criminals to be punished by a special tax imposed only on
> them without benefit of trial.
And again, taxes are not considered legal punishments. Fines are, but
they may not be imposed without benefit of trial.
> Any subsequent appeal in the tax
> courts would deal with any issue of not paying the penalty tax and not
> on the issue of the penalty tax itself.
That's because under the law, the tax is not a penalty.
> If the Constitution permitted
> bills of attainder, government officials could, by law, force the
> person attained or punished by legislative act to forfeit his liberty,
> property, or income.
Of course, if by government officials, you mean officers of the executive
acting without the imprimatur of the courts. But that's not the case
here.
> A law such as the Bills in discussion as enacted
> into law punishes *by the mere existence of the law* and executive
> administration of the law without judicial process though loss of
> income by a specially applied penalty.
The penalties prescribed by law for non-payment of taxes may be
adjudicated in court. You're simply and flat-out wrong about this.
>> > The penalty tax against receivers of AIG bonuses would have been
>> > an unconstitutional act of attainder against AIG bonus receivers,
>> > there also being an additional unconstitutional ex post facto
>> > issue.
>>
>> You just compound your ignorance, don't you? Taxes are not criminal
>> penalities and as unfair as it is, taxes may be imposed after the
>> fact.
>>
>
> Punishment for a behavior (lawfully, contractually receiving pay
> bonuses at AIG) by the imposition of a tax does not make it any less a
> punishment.
I understand that you want the tax to be a legal penalty for the purposes
of your argument. But it's not for the purposes of the law.
> A tax levied for the specific purpose of engaging in
> otherwise lawful behavior is ignoring due process and equal
> protection.
A legislative act by itself cannot constitute a violation of due process.
Do you understand why?
And I don't think you understand the meaning of "equal protection."
> A tax is not to be imposed on individuals for their
> behavior that consists in *not* doing something.
Please provide a cite for this.
> Czarist taxes on men
> wearing beards (not shaving) is such an act of unequal application of
> a law just the same as taxes imposed on individuals not engaging in a
> particular commerce (not buying health insurance). What U.S. case law
> supports a tax imposed on those not engaging in a particular commerce
> and only for that reason? What would keep Congress imposing a tax on
> men wearing beards or woman with armpit hair?
When a law discriminates between individuals, it must *at least* be
reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Facial hair is
not generally a legitimate government interest. Health care is.
> The only such tax law
> applicable to commerce that now exists is tax on *proactive*
> commercial engagement, such as a sales tax or so-called luxury tax,
> but those who do not buy things are not taxed for *not* buying
> things, and never have been, and I would like to see you present
> judicial precedent for penalty or tax imposed for *not* doing
> something.
First of all, under the law, taxes are not penalties. You are simply and
flat-out wrong about this.
Secondly, under our system, I don't need to provide you with judicial
precedent saying that a law is Constitutional. If the law has yet to be
adjudicated, then it is presumptively Constitutional, although a future
legal decision could change that. It is *you* who has to provide
precedent showing that the law is *not* Constitutional.
Can you?
>> >> Neither is it an equal protection issue, because the law doesn't
>> >> single out any class of persons. It applies to everyone.
>>
>
> It only applies to people who do not want to buy government-approved
> health insurance. Everyone else is exempt.
This is a silly argument. You might as well say that penalties apply
only to people who don't pay their income tax. Everyone else (i.e.,
those who do pay) are exempt.
> The salient feature is the
> punishment for not doing something and the imposition of a punishment
> without benefit of a criminal trial.
Again, there is no punishment for not doing something. There is
imposition of a tax. Sorry, but under the law, no matter how painful, a
tax is not a penalty. And those who don't pay may get their day in
court. You are simply and flat-out wrong in this assertion, and you
should stop making it.
> Any subsequent tax-evasion trial
> would be on not paying the tax and not on whether one wants to pay the
> tax, and there certainly is precedent against winning in that trial.
Of course. You don't get not to pay because you don't want to pay.
> The issue is on whether a penalty tax imposed for not engaging in
> commerce is constitutional either by the Constitution in word and
> intent or by case-law. Please make that argument.
Again. A tax is not a legal penalty. You should stop making this
argument.
The test under Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich is whether the
government action directly affects interstate commerce in a substantial
way. Are you really arguing that reforming the health insurance industry
won't have a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce?
That's the argument as the law stands today. Please make a counter
argument.
>> > Equal protection can apply to a class of people who refuse medical
>> > treatment and prior insurance to cover medical treatment for any
>> > reason.
>>
>> No, it can't. I was going to explain why not,
>
> . . . But you can't. Explain how any adult can be forced into medical
> treatment
Whoa! Nobody, and by nobody, I mean any legally competent adult, cannot
be "forced" into medical treatment. And nothing in the health-insurance
bills requires medical treatment.
> and then be forced into paying for that treatment through
> medical insurance which he has been forced to purchase.
It has been settled that it is Constitutional to force you into paying
for retirement-inomce insurance.
> Equal
> protection applies to coercion against individuals who otherwise are
> harming no one but are not treated legally as in the same class as all
> other citizens.
Equal protection requires at least a legitimate government interest.
(For descrimination based on so-called "suspect classes," there's a
higher bar.) You'll have to argue that there is no government interest
in public health. Is that what you're doing? Good luck with that.
> Refusing a black man access to a water fountain in a
> public park cannot be justified by just saying: "Well, the law applies
> to everyone."
Absolutely right. In this case, the government must have a "compelling
interest" in keeping black people away from fountains in public parks.
But that's because race is a suspect class. Taxpayers don't form such a
class.
> In spite of its name, the rational-basis test is arbitrary law, and
> simply amounts to labeling as constitutional what the federal courts
> say is constitutional, so long as the legislature will be proclaimed
> as "rational".
I wouldn't say that it's arbitrary. It's just not open to mechanical
determination. Human judgment applies, but that's the case for most
decisions.
>> > There actually has been an issue of whether the Bills would
>> > cover Christian Science prayer healing sessions, and if it were,
>> > that opens a can of worms on the First Amendment and the federal
>> > government for the first time actually giving preference of one
>> > religion over another. Equal protection can also apply to the
>> > class that refuses to consider that their medical information be
>> > stored in a government- accessible data bank.
>>
>
> Please address how the federal government can involve itself in
> positive enforcement of one particular religious belief, i.e., CS
> prayer treatment is an effective medical treatment?
For this to fly, prayer treatment would have to be shown effective under
double-blind studies. There have been such studies, and prayer has been
shown to have no effect on the population studied. Interestingly enough,
when people know they are not part of the control group for the efficacy
of prayer, there's some evidence that they do worse. The speculation is
that they feel worse because people generally pray only for hopeless
cases, and that makes them less likely to get better. But no one knows
for sure.
CS prayer treatment is an absurd part of the bill, and I'd think it is
unlikely to survive the legislative process or if it does, judicial
review.
But this has nothing to do with your main argument, does it?
>
>>
>> >> You have assumed that because you oppose the policy, then it must
>> >> be illegal.
>> > Coercive policy by the federal government always has to be closely
>> > scrutinized.
>>
>> Finally, something that I can agree with. But it doesn't help your
>> case to misapply legal doctrines.
>>
>
> Please cite legal precedent for coercion into commercial products or
> services.
Do you understand why no legal precedent is required for novel law? I
have tried to explain the rebuttable presumption of Constitutionality.
Has my explanation not made sense? Do you understand that your request
implies an advisory authority of the courts? Do you understand that such
authority is specfically withheld under the Constitution?
Tell me what's not clear.
>> >> > It is also not
>> >> > an issue of free-rider on government services because those
>> >> > individuals are CHOOSING TO DO WITHOUT.
>>
>> >> >> > and then further criminally pursuing them in the courts
>>
>> >> >> Just like all other law breaking.
>>
>
> "Law breaking" here defined as actually doing nothing at all.
No, "law breaking" here is defined as not paying your taxes.
>> Sometimes removing yourself from the US won't work either.
>>
>> But this is true of any law you don't want to obey.
>>
>
> You are simply justifying totalitarian law and not defending U.S.
> constitutional law.
You cannot show any portion of any of my posts that defends
totalitarianism. I have explained the status of taxes under the law,
the characteristics of a bill of attainder, the operation of the courts
under the Constitution, and allowable actions under the commerce clause,
equal protection, and due process.
I believe that I have done that respectfully and specifically. Do you
have any actual rebuttal? Calling me a proponent of "totalitarian law"
doesn't count.
>> > The fact that
>> > whole classes of people cannot be reached through this coercive
>> > scheme, like unemployed vagrants, is immaterial but certainly makes
>> > a mockery of the intent of the Bills to provide insurance to all
>> > those who do not have it whether they want it or not.
>>
>> This may be true. It has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of
>> the bills.
>>
>
> It has to do with equal protection. By being gainfully employed and
> establishing financial roots makes one *inherently* vulnerable to
> punishment. The Bills, by their very nature, cannot be applied
> equally, if only because those who are jobless vagrants (in equal
> "need" of medical insurance) cannot be coerced into buying medical
> insurance in the same way that employed, tax-paying individuals can
> be.
You seem to think that equal protection means that everyone must be
treated identically under the law. This is not true. You can find an
introductory discusion under "Equal Protection" in Wikipedia. Read that
and get back to me.
Health insurance reform may be doomed to failure and bad public policy
regardless of its effect. I don't presume to know one way or another.
I'm interested in legal arguments about the proposed legislation, and I'm
open to hearing your case against its Constitutionality. But you're
going to have to argue using standard legal practice and precedent.