The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 28, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
-
BzaDem (10,591 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
It is simply amazing to me that any liberal would be in favor of throwing out a major economic bill
on the grounds that it exceeds Congress' power under the commerce clause.
The case before the Supreme Court is not about whether the mandate is good policy. Furthermore, it is not about whether we have an individual right not to purchase a product from a private corporation. Everyone acknowledges that a state can pass such a mandate.
The case is solely about the allocation of power between the federal government and the states.
ANY decision striking down the mandate will contain general language that will be used in the next case challenging a major social program. But in the next case, you will want the social program to be upheld. In fact, just now, the Supreme Court just finished arguing about whether the expansion of MEDICAID (insuring 18 million people) is unconstitutional. That's right -- Medicaid. The government run healthcare program.
Why would the expansion be unconstitutional? The conservatives argue that the grant of funds to the states is so large, and that states have become so dependent on it, that forced expansions of the program (under penalty of withdrawal of federal funds) unconstitutionally "coerce" the states. Lurking in the background, the same broad sweeping anti-federal-government arguments in the mandate case were present in the argument for the Medicaid case.
It has always been the position of the vast majority of liberal legal scholars that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate broadly. This does not mean that Congress should be able to violate the bill of rights. It simply means that if everyone concedes a state can enact a broad economic program, the courts should skeptically question arguments that say the federal government cannot do so. This has particularly been true since the early 20-th century court, that struck down liberal program after liberal program (in some cases with the same broad principles and arguments being argued here).
If you are enthusiastic about the Supreme Court going down a road where progressive economic policy is PROHIBITED by the Constitution, you should cheer the challenge to the mandate. Otherwise, you should look upon the challenge in horror. This is true whether or not you think the mandate is bad policy that should be repealed. You may feel that the ends justify the means now -- but those same means will be used later to justify ends you abhor.
It took over three decades for the court to shed the Constitutionalization of right wing economic thought the last time this was tried. If the court starts down this road now (and particularly if a Republican appoints Kennedy's replacement), many of us may not live to see the day where this torrent of judicial activism is reversed. It may take that long to right the wrong, and millions of people will suffer in the interim.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485334
-
"progressive economic policy"....now ain't that the fanciest way to say rob working people so we can buy votes from the nonworking lazy you have ever heard?
-
It has always been the position of the vast majority of liberal legal scholars that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate broadly. This does not mean that Congress should be able to violate the bill of rights. It simply means that if everyone concedes a state can enact a broad economic program, the courts should skeptically question arguments that say the federal government cannot do so. This has particularly been true since the early 20-th century court, that struck down liberal program after liberal program (in some cases with the same broad principles and arguments being argued here).
Well, BozoDem, I guess we should just throw out State Constitutions in favor of the Federal Constitution, huh?
If that's the argument you have, then Mass' HealthCare law is unconstitutional, too, huh, asswipe?
You can try all you want to read somethin' in to the Constitution that's not there, appoint judges that close their eyes to the law, but you will never convince most Americans that the feds can make you buy somethin' you don't want or need!
Ya got that, ya ignorant slug? The Constitution is in place to protect us from tyrants like you! So go take a long walk off a short pier!!!
If you are enthusiastic about the Supreme Court going down a road where progressive economic policy is PROHIBITED by the Constitution, you should cheer the challenge to the mandate. Otherwise, you should look upon the challenge in horror. This is true whether or not you think the mandate is bad policy that should be repealed. You may feel that the ends justify the means now -- but those same means will be used later to justify ends you abhor.
kinda like Roe vs. Wade?
-
why do the DUmb one's always write such long posts?
-
It has always been the position of the vast majority of liberal legal scholars that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate broadly. This does not mean that Congress should be able to violate the bill of rights.
And those liberal legal scholars are ****ing retards. They are limited to what they can do as their duties and prohibitions are delineated in Article 1 of the US Constitution. They just can't do whatever the **** they want to do, even though you idiots think they can...so long as it shit YOU agree with.
Again, this is why it's so easy to set up a Marxist/Socialist dictatorship among you Prog idiots.
-
why do the DUmb one's always write such long posts?
Because the DUmmies consider that the length of the post equals greater intelligence. Clearly it just reflects more stupidity.
-
Because the DUmmies consider that the length of the post equals greater intelligence. Clearly it just reflects more stupidity.
Brevity is the soul of wit. If the inverse is true, they really are some dumb ****s.
-
BzaDem (10,591 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
...
The case is solely about the allocation of power between the federal government and the states.
...
There is a third party in interest covered by the Constitution, you know, particularly by the first 10 Amendments, and also the 13th through 15th, the 19th, and the 26th. We generally refer to that third stakeholder as "The People."
-
There is a third party in interest covered by the Constitution, you know, particularly by the first 10 Amendments, and also the 13th through 15th, the 19th, and the 26th. We generally refer to that third stakeholder as "The People."
The People's Glorious Council has decided that the People's Glorious Revolution will bestow the People's Glorius Healthcare for free.
-
The People's Glorious Council has decided that the People's Glorious Revolution will bestow the People's Glorius Healthcare for free.
Vox DU, vox idioti.