|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 28 2013 11:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:22 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper. An interesting characterization of those not in bed with constitutional originalists to be sure, but at the end of the day, you can whine inconsistency all you like and it will not change the fact that the Constitution and socialized healthcare can and will co-exist. It's really just a question of how much kicking and screaming y'all have the energy for. Please show me how ANY of the founders would have endorsed the idea of a mandatory purchase. Hell, even those who ratified the tax amendment. Any other interpretation of the Constitution is wrong... the only debate should be about what the Framers meant in their wording, since that is our law. No other way is even logical. What good is the law of it can be changed on a whim? But I'm sure you've heard this all before and reject it. Convenient. And they do coexist, the Constitution as a document only followed when elections roll around; at all other times, as history has shown, the left (and many on the right) will completely ignore it. But I understand, when the law is not on your side, you just what you want anyway. Like Danglers said, use activist judges, "taxes," etc. The path of "progress" must not be stopped by mere laws.
Yawn, "activist judges" just refers to rulings you don't like. And people who claim "originalism" blatantly use their own bias in their rulings. And often they make up bullshit about how the founders think exactly how they think.
Take Loving vs Virginia. We said that the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause means that Interracial Marriage must be legal. Except... when we originally wrote the 14th Amendment after the civil war, we argued specifically that it did not mean that Interracial Marriage must be legal. It wouldn't have ratified if states thought that's what it would mean 100 years from then.
Yet "originalist" judges like Scalia pretend that the 14th Amendment did not change, and that bans on Interracial Marriage was always unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. In fact he specifically said that in the DOMA hearing.
The only difference between the living constitution interpretation and originalist interpretation is that one is more honest than the other.
|
On September 28 2013 11:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:22 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper. An interesting characterization of those not in bed with constitutional originalists to be sure, but at the end of the day, you can whine inconsistency all you like and it will not change the fact that the Constitution and socialized healthcare can and will co-exist. It's really just a question of how much kicking and screaming y'all have the energy for. Please show me how ANY of the founders would have endorsed the idea of a mandatory purchase. Hell, even those who ratified the tax amendment. Any other interpretation of the Constitution is wrong... the only debate should be about what the Framers meant in their wording, since that is our law. No other way is even logical. What good is the law of it can be changed on a whim? But I'm sure you've heard this all before and reject it. Convenient. And they do coexist, the Constitution as a document only followed when elections roll around; at all other times, as history has shown, the left (and many on the right) will completely ignore it. But I understand, when the law is not on your side, you just what you want anyway. Like Danglers said, use activist judges, "taxes," etc. The path of "progress" must not be stopped by mere laws.
Ahh yes, the "no, you're just wrong" approach. Funny how that sort of thinking works out in a "democratic" society; it only carries water for so long. That's ok though, normal people with a committed interest in moving forward won't pretend that their opposition has no case. We need only hope that they go into politics and the legal system instead of you.
Go ahead, keep pretending that living constitutionality isn't a thing.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Lefties like me generally don't care to take a literal interpretation of the constitution in the first place, so if we're liberal with a clause, that's perfectly in harmony with our ideals. We aren't hypocritical about it, unlike constitutionalists who swear to it like they do the bible, yet would turn their back on it for their own self-interests in a heartbeat as we've seen.
|
Pardon me, I don't know how to quote two different people in the same post.
Yawn, "activist judges" just refers to rulings you don't like. And people who claim "originalism" blatantly use their own bias in their rulings. And often they make up bullshit about how the founders think exactly how they think.
Take Loving vs Virginia. We said that the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause means that Interracial Marriage must be legal. Except... when we originally wrote the 14th Amendment after the civil war, we argued specifically that it did not mean that Interracial Marriage must be legal. It wouldn't have ratified if states thought that's what it would mean 100 years from then.
Yet "originalist" judges like Scalia pretend that the 14th Amendment did not change, and that bans on Interracial Marriage was always unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. In fact he specifically said that in the DOMA hearing.
The only difference between the living constitution interpretation and originalist interpretation is that one is more honest than the other.
I defend originalism, not justices. Activist judges ignore the Constitution and rule the way they want, nor do I agree with everything Scalia has ever said. But as a way of looking at the Constitution, Originalism is the only one that even makes any sense, as I pointed out.
Ahh yes, the "no, you're just wrong" approach. Funny how that sort of thinking works out in a "democratic" society; it only carries water for so long. That's ok though, normal people with a committed interest in moving forward won't pretend that their opposition has no case. We need only hope that they go into politics and the legal system instead of you.
Go ahead, keep pretending that living constitutionality isn't a thing.
Go ahead and show me what I asked for. You can't. You would use the mantel of "living constitutionality" to excuse any thing you want to do that isn't expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Please show me, it what iteration of the "living constitution" is a mandatory purchase just for being a citizen legal. A better question as well, would be "ok, so then what IS unconstitutional?" Why get so angry over the NSA? "Hey man, times change." See how selective that is? I have given a logical opinion. I didn't write a dissertation, it's true. But I did give a rational source for it, namely, "the law is what the law says." You don't seem to have a rhyme or reason to this ever changing document, it's just whatever serves your need.
I'll add my last edit here:
Hence why Obama feels no guilt at all to just willy-nilly delay parts of the LAW. [because the law can change as the progressive wills it to change] Obamacare is law, yes? The democrats constantly remind us of this.
As an interesting aside, it would be fun to see liberals try and convince the country that their way is so great and actually use amendments to make it Constitutional. The progressive movement has been around a hundred years, surely they could have done something besides add the income tax? Of course the people would never go for that, so other avenues must be used.
|
Where in the Constitution does it ever reference constitutional interpretation?
|
I defend originalism, not justices. Activist judges ignore the Constitution and rule the way they want, nor do I agree with everything Scalia has ever said. But as a way of looking at the Constitution, Originalism is the only one that even makes any sense, as I pointed out.
And I am pointing out the only difference between living constitution and originalism is that one is intellectually dishonest. Either way you're doing your own interpretation. Just with Originalism you're pretending that your interpretation is the One True Interpretation.
I mean, take Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Does that mean only punishments not considered cruel at the time period of its ratification? Because recently we've done a lot of studies on Solitary Confinement and how it has permanent, severe psychological effects on people. But certainly we did far worse things than Solitary Confinement back in the day. Does the fact that we have new information get thrown out of the discussion because of originalism?
How would you rule in Loving vs Virginia? Do you think Equal Protection Under the Law is consistent with banning Interracial Marriage?
I should also point out that the 14th Amendment radically changed the way the Constitution works, because it "incorporated" the Bill of Rights to the states. That is definitely not original intent, because before then States could establish religion.
Originalism is also directly inconsistent with the intention of the Ninth Amendment, which directly says that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution. In that way you can say it's self contradictory. This is a good article that overviews the historical issues with Originalism.
Keeping their promise, the first Congress went right to work, both illustratively enumerating some natural rights, but also–not surprisingly, at the insistence of Madison–making it abundantly clear in the Ninth Amendment (just like “among these” in the Declaration) that any enumeration does not invalidate or deny any rights that are not enumerated:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In fact, the Founders’ theory of natural law included the idea that as human beings become more and more enlightened over historical time, they would develop a richer and deeper appreciation of true scope of natural law. It was thus totally expected that there would be natural rights that were not even known to the Founders at the time of the founding, but were nontheless unalienable and could not be infringed by any legitimate government.
|
Where in the Constitution does it ever reference constitutional interpretation?
Amendments nine and ten, for starters. Also, the idea of enumerated powers. That's pretty well documented. But George Mason may have been right, sadly. The Constitution was still vague enough that it could be dishonestly construed to give power it did not. Besides, as I said, Originalism the only logical way. So far you have given no real doctrine for how you interpret the Constitution besides "it says what I need it to say." It's incredible that you are arguing that the law can just be "seen differently" and that makes it ok. I ask, what even then IS the point of the law? Also, please, in clear terms, tell me what you consider a test of Constitutionality. So far you don't have one.
And I am pointing out the only difference between living constitution and originalism is that one is intellectually dishonest. Either way you're doing your own interpretation. Just with Originalism you're pretending that your interpretation is the One True Interpretation.
I mean, take Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Does that mean only punishments not considered cruel at the time period of its ratification? Because recently we've done a lot of studies on Solitary Confinement and how it has permanent, severe psychological effects on people. But certainly we did far worse things than Solitary Confinement back in the day. Does the fact that we have new information get thrown out of the discussion because of originalism?
How would you rule in Loving vs Virginia? Do you think Equal Protection Under the Law is consistent with banning Interracial Marriage?
I should also point out that the 14th Amendment radically changed the way the Constitution works, because it "incorporated" the Bill of Rights to the states. That is definitely not original intent, because before then States could establish religion.
Originalism is also directly inconsistent with the intention of the Ninth Amendment, which directly says that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution. In that way you can say it's self contradictory. This is a good article that overviews the issues with Originalism.
I've asked again and again what is your EXACT interpretation of the Constitution. So far all you have advocated is that it can change as the rulers want it to. My hypothetical still stands. Why be angry at the NSA? Why be angry that President's go to war on their own? "These things change man." Why is it ok for Obama to just change parts of laws he doesn't like? So far you just accuse me of being close minded, but I'm the only one that has presented an actual doctrine for seeing the law. Your view, as of now, makes the law an annoying formality, disconnected with what actually goes on.
We could discuss cruel and unusual punishment. What did they mean by it back then? of course right now, we have NEW ways torturing people that didn't exist back then, so we have to do the research and find out what the Framers would have said. THAT is a legitimate debate, not this silly idea of a living Constitution.
That article makes no sense. He's right in the first half, and draws the wrong conclusion. Conservatives are the one's defending those rights. Like the Conservatives in the Obamacare case. he gives no examples in the second half of his article, so I will not give any more in this (short) response.
Again, I said I support Originalism, not Justices.
The 14th amendment is obviously Constitutional, and should be viewed in terms of how it was adopted. (as in, the way the law was written and what it meant.) It clarified what the states could NOT do. A clarification. "No states, you can't deny citizens their rights as Americans because of their skin color." It did change some other things, as you mentioned. But that one case does not destroy the entirety of Originalism. There have been good amendments, but my point is that the entirety of the Constitution is to be viewed through the lens that each section was viewed at the time of its ratification, unless expressly changed through a future amendment.The people and states still have all of their non-enumerated rights, so it doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. besides, you make my point. It's an official amendment, not a backdoor judicial ruling.
"Directly inconsistent." ?!! The ninth amendment was, like the others, passed and ratified almost immediately after the Constitution was put into full force. I don't see the inconsistency. I'm not arguing that the 14 amendment is bad because the founders didn't put it in the first draft.
Summary, since I am in a hurry:
Like I said, let the liberals actually amend the Constitution for real, not by backdoor methods. Second: please provide a clear interpretation of the Constitution, so far you don't have one. Unless it is "let the government do as it wants because things are different now."
Sorry for being all over the place, I'm about to go get some food!
|
I'm confused. Obamacare was ruled constitutional under the tax provisions of the Constitution. Congress has tax powers under the Constitution. That's not really a case of judicial activism at all, which usually refers to things like Roe v Wade and how it developed the "right to an abortion" by an extension of the 4th Amendment. And conservatives often rail how the "Right to Privacy" is a made up right, as the 4th Amendment does not directly say that.
And I don't even understand what you mean by "present your view of Constitution." What? What do I show you? I don't understand what you're even asking me. What's YOUR clear interpretation of the Constitution? Because it sounds to me like it's like some warped folk history of the Constitution. My interpretation of the Constitution is basically the one espoused by the ACLU.
Originalism is directly inconsistent with the Ninth Amendment because the intention of the Ninth Amendment is that the founders could not have foretold all the natural rights that we would determine. It's literally saying that there are rights we have that are not in the Constitution. If jurisprudence went differently, the Supreme Court could rule that we have "The Right to Healthcare" or "The Right to Marriage" or "The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law." That is the intention of the Ninth Amendment. However, that makes obviously no sense under Originalism, which says that the only rights are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
So the Ninth Amendment and Originalism oppose each other.
I'm actually starting to get the impression that you don't know what originalism is, and you don't know the stances that liberals and conservatives actually have on the Constitution. Conservatives, for instance, like to constantly pretend that the Establishment Clause doesn't exist, and that religious freedom only applies to Christians. And they also try to get rid of Privacy rights for "National Security" and "Pro-Life" purposes.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting that conservatives defend the constitution. As I said before, the ACLU is an organization that just defends people's constitutional rights, and they are often labeled a "far-left" organization because of it.
|
On September 28 2013 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +ObamaCare List Hits 313 As 54 Colleges Cut Adjunct Hours
If one job category stands out for bearing a heavy price from ObamaCare-related cuts to work hours, it might be adjunct college faculty.
Among 313 employers now on IBD's ObamaCare Employer Mandate List Of Cuts To Hours, Jobs that have cut work hours or permanent staff, or shifted to part-time hiring, there are 54 colleges and universities that have scaled back the hours adjunct faculty may teach.
The list also includes 80 public school districts that have cut hours or outsourced the job functions of teacher aides, cafeteria workers and other employees.
Still, the inclusion of a number of community college systems such as Maricopa, Ivy Tech and Dallas County means that cuts in adjunct faculty hours now extend to nearly 200 college and university campuses attended by about 1.6 million students.
All over the country, adjunct teaching loads are being limited to nine credit hours — just below the 30-hour threshold at which Affordable Care Act employer penalties hit. That's the equivalent of nine hours per week in the classroom and 18 hours of work preparing, grading, etc. ... LinkObamacare clearly has flaws. Both Reps and Dems should be trying to fix those flaws. Reps shouldn't be trying to repeal it at this point, it's just too late in the game for that.
It's too flawed to be fixed, it needs to be put down. I want three, four years down the line to be able to say that my representatives fought this tooth and nail, fought to defund it, and didn't give up until the Democrats forced it through. When it winds up having made both quality of care and general expense worse, and everybody in the news will be reporting how this that and the other thing are to blame and nobody could have seen it coming, they'll be a solid core of individuals coming out strong to pressure a repeal at that point. This as opposed to an entire crop of legislators that did not do their best to avert disaster. I hope the next step of single payer/universal health care does not win the day during the slow collapse of private insurance.
And by golly, government by continuing resolution has got to stop being a ho hum rubber stamp deal. The most immediate representatives of the people must originate the spending bills (do look at the constitutional convention and federalist/antifederalist debates on it), but do you feel like the people hold the purse-strings of government? Fund it all save for Obamacare or let Harry Reid have a second government shutdown in the last two decades.
|
On September 28 2013 12:51 DoubleReed wrote:I'm confused. Obamacare was ruled constitutional under the tax provisions of the Constitution. Congress has tax powers under the Constitution. That's not really a case of judicial activism at all, which usually refers to things like Roe v Wade and how it developed the "right to an abortion" by an extension of the 4th Amendment. And conservatives often rail how the "Right to Privacy" is a made up right, as the 4th Amendment does not directly say that. And I don't even understand what you mean by "present your view of Constitution." What? What do I show you? I don't understand what you're even asking me. What's your clear interpretation of the Constitution? Because it sounds to me like it's like some warped folk history of the Constitution. My interpretation of the Constitution is basically the one espoused by the ACLU. Originalism is directly inconsistent with the Ninth Amendment because the intention of the Ninth Amendment is that the founders could not have foretold all the natural rights that we would determine. It's literally saying that there are rights we have that are not in the Constitution. If jurisprudence went differently, the Supreme Court could rule that we have "The Right to Healthcare" or "The Right to Marriage" or "The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law." That is the intention of the Ninth Amendment. However, that makes obviously no sense under Originalism, which says that the only rights are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. So the Ninth Amendment and Originalism oppose each other. I'm actually starting to get the impression that you don't know what originalism is, and you don't know the stances that liberals and conservatives actually have on the Constitution. Conservatives, for instance, like to constantly pretend that the Establishment Clause doesn't exist, and that religious freedom only applies to Christians. And they also try to get rid of Privacy rights for "National Security" and "Pro-Life" purposes. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting that conservatives defend the constitution. As I said before, the ACLU is an organization that just defends people's constitutional rights, and they are often labeled a "far-left" organization because of it.
Something being ruled Constitutional does not make it so. That's my point. Judicial activism re-writes the law. No matter how John Roberts wants to twist it (especially when the administration ITSELF argued that it was not a tax), that doesn't make it so. Much has been written on this, but for one thing, activities and money making ventures are taxed. I doubt even those who passed the tax amendment would say that it gives authority to tax just for being a citizen. That's not a tax.
You are missing some things. There is no "right to privacy" in the sense the Court used it. Just because people molest someone in their own home (which is clearly wrong) doesn't make it ok. So, if Sodomy/molestation is actually wrong, then there is no implied right to do it in your own home. If abortion is murder then it's wrong in the open or in your house with a coat hanger. The point is, privacy is not something to be claimed when some illegal/immoral action is committed. not to say they can spy on you, but if you are suspected of breaking the law, then they can get a warrant. This subject requires much more discussion, which I'm sure you can find. I'm not advocating sodomy laws, btw.
No, they do NOT. These things have to actually be rights. Basically, you have the right to do what you want, so long as it's not infringing on the rights of others. This is a general rule, btw. Not Gospel. It could certainly be argued that you have a right to seek help when you need it, as all people would. It's not a right to make everyone else pay for it. That infringes on their freedom. "Right to Marriage." The government should not even be involved. But I can see no right to "form an official union with whomever you please." For instance, we have polygamy laws, as well as laws about the marriages of relatives. But you do have the right to live with whoever you want, at their consent, without the government's involvement. Equal protection is in the Constitution, and does not contradict anything I have said. It was assumed by the Founders, made clear in an amendment, when sadly it had to be expressly granted to blacks (the fact that it needed an amendment is the sad part).
Your interpretation of originalism is off. It's the ninth amendment that should be protecting us from the individual mandate and other idiotic laws (as well as the idea of enumerated powers). Originalists accept (embrace, actually) the Bill of Rights as part of the original structure, due to the time frame in which it passed. Originalism is not the same as the Federalists' constitutional views, though they are very similar.
Meanwhile, you are confusing originalists/conservatives with Republicans ( on the spying, etc) and the Establishment Clause with a "separation (read: complete and utter disassociation) of God and Government."
I'm NOT going to go in depth here when you still don't tell me how you view the Constitution. Linking me, essentially, to this page is not cutting it. https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0
Why would I spend this long discussing these small individual cases when I don't know the jist of what you think, or how to you mesh the idea of a living, breathing Constitution with Rights that are set in stone. If the Constitution can change, then so can our interpretation of the ninth amendment! Again, it's very selective.
|
Something being ruled Constitutional does not make it so. That's my point. Judicial activism re-writes the law. No matter how John Roberts wants to twist it (especially when the administration ITSELF argued that it was not a tax), that doesn't make it so. Much has been written on this, but for one thing, activities and money making ventures are taxed. I doubt even those who passed the tax amendment would say that it gives authority to tax just for being a citizen. That's not a tax.
So Marbury vs. Madison isn't canon for originalists? I honestly don't know.
|
On September 28 2013 15:45 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +Something being ruled Constitutional does not make it so. That's my point. Judicial activism re-writes the law. No matter how John Roberts wants to twist it (especially when the administration ITSELF argued that it was not a tax), that doesn't make it so. Much has been written on this, but for one thing, activities and money making ventures are taxed. I doubt even those who passed the tax amendment would say that it gives authority to tax just for being a citizen. That's not a tax. So Marbury vs. Madison isn't canon for originalists? I honestly don't know.
Judicial review is an implied power, but it's been abused. It's a very careful subject for originalists, since, as I said, it is implied and not expressly enumerated. It's also touchy because of the circumstances of that case.
But what I meant by that is that they can issue a ruling that becomes law, but it was the wrong decision constitutionally. It's valid, but it's wrong. If that makes sense. Like Obamacare, for instance. Everyone knows the Court has made horrible decisions that were clearly wrong (Also see: Korematsu v. United States, Dred Scott, etc). Only problem now is that there is no check of power on the Courts, which is why both sides take things to court that should be settled by legislation.
|
On September 28 2013 11:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:13 IgnE wrote:On September 28 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 28 2013 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison. Capitalism isn't being threatened here, only the crony capitalism that we've designed and fed into for the past 100 years. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, and Obamacare is a pretty huge, trillion dollar straw. Will it happen immediately? Nope. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely. Capitalism is definitely being threatened here. If we didn't have the crony capitalism and the socialism-lite of entitlement spending the people would have already risen up or the rich would have barricaded themselves in fortified compounds. Capital accretes capital, now more than ever. We are coming upon the limits of "endless growth" and capitalism is powerless to stop it. Funny how the richest two men in the history of the world were both born poor, and made their wealth through a much freer form of capitalism than we have now.
Crassus wasn't born poor.
|
On September 28 2013 11:47 farvacola wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it ever reference constitutional interpretation?
It doesn't even reference stare decisis! Maybe Supreme Court rulings don't hold in Louisiana, for example 
|
I cannot believe someone really thinks that an over 200 year old piece of paper details the perfect society....
Were the writers time travelers from the future who came to bring us paradise?
Were they infallible gods bringing heaven to earth?
No, they were a bunch of guys no different from you or me who wrote down what they thought a government should do 200 years ago. Times change. People change. Constitutions change.
The original constitution protected slavery. Should America go back to enslaving black people to work the fields? The constitution said it was ok and as you seem to be determined to tell us the constitution is infallible.
|
I want to see if I understand this correctly.
Obamacare (aka the affordable care act) was negotiated, voted on, renegotiated, and so on until it was passed by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by Obama. Republicans have tried and failed many times to repeal the law. The law was passed properly and democratically.
Now since they cannot repeal it legitimately some people want to repeal it indirectly by not funding it in the budget. They argue that they are doing the will of the people (even though Obamacare was passed by both the democratically elected House and Senate and many attempts to repeal it have failed). They argue that defunding Obamacare is in the best interest of the country.
These people threaten to cause at least some parts of the government to shut-down, forcing many government employees to take an unpaid leave from work, unless Obamacare gets defunded. Then there is also the threat of not raising the debt ceiling in a couple of weeks, which would cause the US to default and do massive damage to the global economic crisis.
Isn't this just economic-terrorism? Using threats and fear to get what they want. How do they consider this a reasonable way to do democracy? If such tactics are successful, then surely the most successful people in government would be those who are willing to do the most damage if they do not get what they want. Basically, the government would be run by psychopaths.
Some of the arguments I hear against Obamacare seem contradictory too. I've heard/read it argued that it will be expensive, but when it is explained that not all treatments will be available on every insurance plan and decisions will have to be made about what is cost-effective then people talk about death panels (as in that Michelle Bachmann video with Wolf Blitzer on page 475). I would be astonished if insurance companies don't already do this and refuse some treatments because they are too expensive.
|
As a frenchman I must say I don't understand all the fuss going on in the US about the "obamacare" or whatever you may call it. Experiments all around the world showed that universal care are more efficient economically, and that a completly privatized health system is the worst both economically and socially.
All the arguments around it are somewhat understandable to a certain extent - yes, you don't want your reform to weight too heavily on firms, but that is merely a question of balancing the bill... It doesn't come close to all the positive you could do to your economy.
|
Introvert,
LOL the founders ASSUMED equality??? Are you serious? You do know that slaves counting as 3/5 of a vote is in the Constitution, right? More folk history.
The judicial precedent for equality is under the fifth amendment under due process, but that's only under a living constitution interpretation.
Getting back to Obamacare, why the fuck should anyone care about how the White House argued it? I'm serious. Is the White House a supreme justice now? They said it wasn't a tax and Roberts disagreed with them. And I have no idea where you assert that you can't tax someone for being a citizen. Pulled out of your ass. Especially as not having healthcare creates a free rider problem where everyone else is paying for your healthcare: something you expressly forbade in a previous sentence.
[Edit: so if anything its a tax on citizens who force others to pay for their healthcare.]
No, once again, the only difference between your interpretation and mine is that you're arrogant and zealous enough to think that yours is the One True Interpretation. The whole point is that we can determine what they are as society, not worship some Americo-Religious dogma
Did you think the ruling on the Voting Rights Act was "activism"? They mangled a law that was passed overwhelming in both houses and signed with large popular support, exactly as it previously was passed.
|
On September 28 2013 15:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 15:45 Mercy13 wrote:Something being ruled Constitutional does not make it so. That's my point. Judicial activism re-writes the law. No matter how John Roberts wants to twist it (especially when the administration ITSELF argued that it was not a tax), that doesn't make it so. Much has been written on this, but for one thing, activities and money making ventures are taxed. I doubt even those who passed the tax amendment would say that it gives authority to tax just for being a citizen. That's not a tax. So Marbury vs. Madison isn't canon for originalists? I honestly don't know. Judicial review is an implied power, but it's been abused. It's a very careful subject for originalists, since, as I said, it is implied and not expressly enumerated. It's also touchy because of the circumstances of that case. But what I meant by that is that they can issue a ruling that becomes law, but it was the wrong decision constitutionally. It's valid, but it's wrong. If that makes sense. Like Obamacare, for instance. Everyone knows the Court has made horrible decisions that were clearly wrong (Also see: Korematsu v. United States, Dred Scott, etc). Only problem now is that there is no check of power on the Courts, which is why both sides take things to court that should be settled by legislation.
Are there any decisions that you can name that were decided "wrong" (meaning that they are inconsistent with what the Founders would have wanted) but that you believe had a good outcome from a policy perspective? Or do you just happen to think that the Founders would have agreed with all of your policy preferences?
|
Also, Introvert, your dismissal of rights without discussion or debate is once again completely against the intention of the ninth amendment. And because you're an originalist you're additionally claiming the founding fathers would agree with you. You're basically no saner than a priest who thinks he has a direct line to God.
(Your argument against the right to marriage is particularly nonsensical. Even free speech is not unrestricted.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
