|
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. |
Its almost as if Republicans are looking to never be elected again at this point. Playing chicken didn't work so hot for them last election season.
The only way I can see them not coming out smelling like shit at the end of all this is if they pull a massive troll. "Obamacare sucks, here's the actual 100% legit universal healthcare the people actually want! We'll pass the shit out of this!" just to say they were right all along, Obamacare is crap, and we defeated it at the end of the day!
|
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal."
|
Are you saying Republicans are willing to give up on repealing Obamacare? If they are not, negotiations are pointless because Obama is not going to repeal it while he is President.
He is also not going to make it easier for Republicans to do it later if they win the Presidency in 2016.
|
On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
The GOP's so-called "concessions" are meaningless until they agree to not threaten to shut down the government or risk a default the next time they want something. Say that the House bill passes, and the ACA is delayed for a year. What's to stop the GOP from pulling this nonsense next time and once again risking a default in order to get what they want? What if next time they decide that not only defunding the ACA should be linked to keeping the government in business, but they also want a law to be passed defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? What if in the future EVERY time either of the major political parties feels strongly about a policy they threaten a default in order to get what they want?
I don't get how any thinking person can believe that this is an acceptable negotiating tactic, or that it is anything but harmful to our already atrocious political system.
|
On September 29 2013 12:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote: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. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. 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? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue. You have logically defended nothing. You have simply asserted that your way is the right way. Maybe you're not understanding this. I'm saying that your view is just as bullshit as my view, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You just wave your flag around about what the founders really want, but you haven't determined that at all. You've relied on folk history and bullshit to justify your own biases. And I have yet to call you close-minded. I've called you intellectually dishonest. It's almost like you're just completely ignoring what I'm writing in my posts. You keep asking me to tell you what my view is. I genuinely don't understand what you want from me. So please demonstrate what your view is. I gave you the ACLU website, they explain constitutional and legal things much better than I ever could. I don't know what you want from me. I suppose I could copy and paste things from the Wikipedia entry on Living Constitution, where I would fall under Judicial Pragmatism: Show nested quote +This general view has been expressed by the former conservative/now centrist Judge Richard Posner:
"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. Again, Obamacare has a free rider problem. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered, then anybody without health insurance is going to be riding on the taxpayer's expense (this happens to a certain extent now as well). Therefore the tax. As I said in my edit, it's a tax on people riding on the taxpayer's expense. Which is perfectly defensible, except to you, who seems to just simply have a problem with Obamacare. And the way the law works is important to the constitutionality of the law. Judges are supposed to be pragmatic about things. I'm all for limited government powers. We just disagree on Obamacare, which you find so mind-blowing that you accuse me tyranny or something. It's really quite silly, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the free-rider issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is a three-legged stool. Besides, you're the one who directly argued against the idea that citizens have a right to privacy, marriage, and healthcare. And you accuse me of expanding government power? You're not paying attention. This is why I function under pragmatism. So I don't end up looking so silly.
If you would like, we could both start citing sources. I feel that neither of us would really like to begin that endeavor, however.
Of course I claim my interpretation is right. So do you. They can't both be right!
"Folk History." Everything I have made a point with (enumerated powers, equality under the law, originalism's consistency) is based in lots of research and the founders own words. Go read the Federalist papers, anti federalist papers, state convention debates, etc. That's all history, not folk tale. Now obviously they didn't directly discuss the idea of originalism, for obvious reasons. But nowhere did they say "the laws herein are subject to change when 'society' deems it needed." They added the amendment process for that. But you would find it too slow and to inconvenient, I imagine. But my objection still stands. "Judicial Pragmatism" has no historical basis from the ones who wrote and approved the Constitution. This is the part that confuses me. The founders clearly intended that the law be followed a certain way, as I have described. You are simply riding over it when you don't like it. You think this is the better way, and thus should be followed, despite the fact that the law allows for no such thing. It's just a blatant disregard for the system.
My view, cleanly stated is that "The Constitution, in all its sections, is to be viewed and interpreted as the founders/amenders intended at the time of ratification. All changes to interpretation must be the result of new historical understand of what the ratifiers meant at the time, or by direct amendments to the document. This view leaves the least (theoretically) room for an abuse of power by the federal government."
No other view has enough consistency to be worth it. Judicial Pragmatism leaves more power to the Courts than they were intended to have. It means that the system we have is too easily malleable and too open to abuse. The Constitution gives no indication of this idea either. I fact, as I've said, it was written with the opposite idea in mind. Was the lack of women voting wrong? Yes. So what did they do? They amended the Constitution. You know, they officially changed the law, they didn't add meanings to words. It was up to the people though the states, not 5 justices. "Gay Marriage was wrong then, but not now. Therefore, the Constitution is now changed to include that. Because we, the Supreme Court of the United States, said so." It's not like the Constitution expressly forbids gay marriage and thus must be changed. It's up to the states, which are all moving in that direction anyway. You know, society is changing. The people. Not the un-elected lawyers on the bench. And if the founders decided that these types of issues were to be left to the states, then that's what the Constitution reflects. You are just being impatient. You are making a moral argument, but it's tricky when discussing law.
Now I somewhat understand the idea of using your view for social issues. Times do change, but you can't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are judicially amendable! Let's not open Pandora's Box based on the moral views of 50% of the population. The "alternative is not acceptable" is a really shaky way to read laws. We aren't discussing hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example.
I don't like the above two paragraph much, but this zone gets very tricky to navigate, because we move from the law (one of the foundations of our society) to social justice. The problem remains, the law we have agreed to live by does not operate under that framework, regardless of whether or not you like it.
I know generally the ACLU's positions, but their about page is very short and light on substance. Besides, the ACLU is often wrong and guilty of revisionism. But a thread on the ACLU could last years, why don't you at least attempt to tell me how the idea of a living constitution meshes with the Bill of Rights?
The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ON INCOMES, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The individual mandate is a "tax" on NOTHING. On simply being a citizen! If you wanted a tax on the subsidies that people under government plans get, then that's fine. But you are FINED for NOT participating. It's as preposterous as Wickard v. Filburn.
Besides, your argument is "well the free riders will ruin the system, therefore EVERYONE should be penalized if they do NOT want to be subsidizing them. It will MAKE people join the system." The idea of forcing people into a contract, essentially, is just government coercion. It forces in the free loaders, and the perfectly-within-their-rights citizens who don't WANT healthcare at that time in their life.
I think Obamacare is so bad because never in our history have citizens been required to make a purchase or be "taxed." Nevermind the violation of the Commerce Clause. Also, as shown by the union opposition, etc, it's simply a bad law.
I directly (and still, very shortly) argued against the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, in terms of those things. I didn't say that citizens don't have a right to privacy. But you missed my statement or something. Judicial pragmatism looks so good because it's easy. "Well, times have changed, guess the Constitution has too! Time to rewrite it!"
I feel this discussion is nearing the end. My view is based in a historical (and quite logical) way to read our law, your's would change it on the basis of "need, " essentially. Not entirely irrational, now that you have actually added some clarification. But still not really all too reasonable (or historically logical), IMO. This is a fundamental difference of outlook where your priority is not the law and how to change it legally, but how to change the meaning when you think it's needed. I oppose this idea.
|
On September 29 2013 15:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 12:49 DoubleReed wrote:On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote: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. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. 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? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue. You have logically defended nothing. You have simply asserted that your way is the right way. Maybe you're not understanding this. I'm saying that your view is just as bullshit as my view, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You just wave your flag around about what the founders really want, but you haven't determined that at all. You've relied on folk history and bullshit to justify your own biases. And I have yet to call you close-minded. I've called you intellectually dishonest. It's almost like you're just completely ignoring what I'm writing in my posts. You keep asking me to tell you what my view is. I genuinely don't understand what you want from me. So please demonstrate what your view is. I gave you the ACLU website, they explain constitutional and legal things much better than I ever could. I don't know what you want from me. I suppose I could copy and paste things from the Wikipedia entry on Living Constitution, where I would fall under Judicial Pragmatism: This general view has been expressed by the former conservative/now centrist Judge Richard Posner:
"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. Again, Obamacare has a free rider problem. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered, then anybody without health insurance is going to be riding on the taxpayer's expense (this happens to a certain extent now as well). Therefore the tax. As I said in my edit, it's a tax on people riding on the taxpayer's expense. Which is perfectly defensible, except to you, who seems to just simply have a problem with Obamacare. And the way the law works is important to the constitutionality of the law. Judges are supposed to be pragmatic about things. I'm all for limited government powers. We just disagree on Obamacare, which you find so mind-blowing that you accuse me tyranny or something. It's really quite silly, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the free-rider issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is a three-legged stool. Besides, you're the one who directly argued against the idea that citizens have a right to privacy, marriage, and healthcare. And you accuse me of expanding government power? You're not paying attention. This is why I function under pragmatism. So I don't end up looking so silly. If you would like, we could both start citing sources. I feel that neither of us would really like to begin that endeavor, however. Of course I claim my interpretation is right. So do you. They can't both be right! "Folk History." Everything I have made a point with (enumerated powers, equality under the law, originalism's consistency) is based in lots of research and the founders own words. Go read the Federalist papers, anti federalist papers, state convention debates, etc. That's all history, not folk tale. Now obviously they didn't directly discuss the idea of originalism, for obvious reasons. But nowhere did they say "the laws herein are subject to change when 'society' deems it needed." They added the amendment process for that. But you would find it too slow and to inconvenient, I imagine. But my objection still stands. "Judicial Pragmatism" has no historical basis from the ones who wrote and approved the Constitution. This is the part that confuses me. The founders clearly intended that the law be followed a certain way, as I have described. You are simply riding over it when you don't like it. You think this is the better way, and thus should be followed, despite the fact that the law allows for no such thing. It's just a blatant disregard for the system. My view, cleanly stated is that "The Constitution, in all its sections, is to be viewed and interpreted as the founders/amenders intended at the time of ratification. All changes to interpretation must be the result of new historical understand of what the ratifiers meant at the time, or by direct amendments to the document. This view leaves the least (theoretically) room for an abuse of power by the federal government." No other view has enough consistency to be worth it. Judicial Pragmatism leaves more power to the Courts than they were intended to have. It means that the system we have is too easily malleable and too open to abuse. The Constitution gives no indication of this idea either. I fact, as I've said, it was written with the opposite idea in mind. Was the lack of women voting wrong? Yes. So what did they do? They amended the Constitution. You know, they officially changed the law, they didn't add meanings to words. It was up to the people though the states, not 5 justices. "Gay Marriage was wrong then, but not now. Therefore, the Constitution is now changed to include that. Because we, the Supreme Court of the United States, said so." It's not like the Constitution expressly forbids gay marriage and thus must be changed. It's up to the states, which are all moving in that direction anyway. You know, society is changing. The people. Not the un-elected lawyers on the bench. And if the founders decided that these types of issues were to be left to the states, then that's what the Constitution reflects. You are just being impatient. You are making a moral argument, but it's tricky when discussing law. Now I somewhat understand the idea of using your view for social issues. Times do change, but you can't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are judicially amendable! Let's not open Pandora's Box based on the moral views of 50% of the population. The "alternative is not acceptable" is a really shaky way to read laws. We aren't discussing hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. I don't like the above two paragraph much, but this zone gets very tricky to navigate, because we move from the law (one of the foundations of our society) to social justice. The problem remains, the law we have agreed to live by does not operate under that framework, regardless of whether or not you like it. I know generally the ACLU's positions, but their about page is very short and light on substance. Besides, the ACLU is often wrong and guilty of revisionism. But a thread on the ACLU could last years, why don't you at least attempt to tell me how the idea of a living constitution meshes with the Bill of Rights? The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ON INCOMES, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The individual mandate is a "tax" on NOTHING. On simply being a citizen! If you wanted a tax on the subsidies that people under government plans get, then that's fine. But you are FINED for NOT participating. It's as preposterous as Wickard v. Filburn. Besides, your argument is "well the free riders will ruin the system, therefore EVERYONE should be penalized if they do NOT want to be subsidizing them. It will MAKE people join the system." The idea of forcing people into a contract, essentially, is just government coercion. It forces in the free loaders, and the perfectly-within-their-rights citizens who don't WANT healthcare at that time in their life. I think Obamacare is so bad because never in our history have citizens been required to make a purchase or be "taxed." Nevermind the violation of the Commerce Clause. Also, as shown by the union opposition, etc, it's simply a bad law. I directly (and still, very shortly) argued against the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, in terms of those things. I didn't say that citizens don't have a right to privacy. But you missed my statement or something. Judicial pragmatism looks so good because it's easy. "Well, times have changed, guess the Constitution has too! Time to rewrite it!" I feel this discussion is nearing the end. My view is based in a historical (and quite logical) way to read our law, your's would change it on the basis of "need, " essentially. Not entirely irrational, now that you have actually added some clarification. But still not really all too reasonable (or historically logical), IMO. This is a fundamental difference of outlook where your priority is not the law and how to change it legally, but how to change the meaning when you think it's needed. I oppose this idea.
I find your pathological fear of the theoretical federal governments abuse -- via courts -- as opposed to state government's real and historical abuse of various racial and sexual minorities confusing.
|
On September 29 2013 14:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its almost as if Republicans are looking to never be elected again at this point. Playing chicken didn't work so hot for them last election season.
The only way I can see them not coming out smelling like shit at the end of all this is if they pull a massive troll. "Obamacare sucks, here's the actual 100% legit universal healthcare the people actually want! We'll pass the shit out of this!" just to say they were right all along, Obamacare is crap, and we defeated it at the end of the day!
With the Gerrymandered districts the logic of an average Congressional Republicans is perfectly rational. "If I act crazy, I get re-elected, if I act 'pragmatic' I get beaten out by a more extreme dude in the primary."
Obviously the Republican establishment is now reaping the seeds of the extreme southern, lets rile the most emotional, least educated part of our base to continue holding on against the Democrats strategy they've set up. Issues like ACA or the debt ceiling are sufficiently complex that an average Republican voter doesnt understand how defaulting on US debt is much worse than having ACA -- look at superfan's comments for a great example. After all, what does it mean "AAA debt level" anyway to a common person? Much simpler to think "I balance my family budget every year so why dont the communists in WAshington?" and "COMMUNISM IS ALWAYS WRONG"
|
On September 29 2013 15:44 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:19 Introvert wrote:On September 29 2013 12:49 DoubleReed wrote:On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote: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. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. 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? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue. You have logically defended nothing. You have simply asserted that your way is the right way. Maybe you're not understanding this. I'm saying that your view is just as bullshit as my view, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You just wave your flag around about what the founders really want, but you haven't determined that at all. You've relied on folk history and bullshit to justify your own biases. And I have yet to call you close-minded. I've called you intellectually dishonest. It's almost like you're just completely ignoring what I'm writing in my posts. You keep asking me to tell you what my view is. I genuinely don't understand what you want from me. So please demonstrate what your view is. I gave you the ACLU website, they explain constitutional and legal things much better than I ever could. I don't know what you want from me. I suppose I could copy and paste things from the Wikipedia entry on Living Constitution, where I would fall under Judicial Pragmatism: This general view has been expressed by the former conservative/now centrist Judge Richard Posner:
"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. Again, Obamacare has a free rider problem. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered, then anybody without health insurance is going to be riding on the taxpayer's expense (this happens to a certain extent now as well). Therefore the tax. As I said in my edit, it's a tax on people riding on the taxpayer's expense. Which is perfectly defensible, except to you, who seems to just simply have a problem with Obamacare. And the way the law works is important to the constitutionality of the law. Judges are supposed to be pragmatic about things. I'm all for limited government powers. We just disagree on Obamacare, which you find so mind-blowing that you accuse me tyranny or something. It's really quite silly, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the free-rider issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is a three-legged stool. Besides, you're the one who directly argued against the idea that citizens have a right to privacy, marriage, and healthcare. And you accuse me of expanding government power? You're not paying attention. This is why I function under pragmatism. So I don't end up looking so silly. If you would like, we could both start citing sources. I feel that neither of us would really like to begin that endeavor, however. Of course I claim my interpretation is right. So do you. They can't both be right! "Folk History." Everything I have made a point with (enumerated powers, equality under the law, originalism's consistency) is based in lots of research and the founders own words. Go read the Federalist papers, anti federalist papers, state convention debates, etc. That's all history, not folk tale. Now obviously they didn't directly discuss the idea of originalism, for obvious reasons. But nowhere did they say "the laws herein are subject to change when 'society' deems it needed." They added the amendment process for that. But you would find it too slow and to inconvenient, I imagine. But my objection still stands. "Judicial Pragmatism" has no historical basis from the ones who wrote and approved the Constitution. This is the part that confuses me. The founders clearly intended that the law be followed a certain way, as I have described. You are simply riding over it when you don't like it. You think this is the better way, and thus should be followed, despite the fact that the law allows for no such thing. It's just a blatant disregard for the system. My view, cleanly stated is that "The Constitution, in all its sections, is to be viewed and interpreted as the founders/amenders intended at the time of ratification. All changes to interpretation must be the result of new historical understand of what the ratifiers meant at the time, or by direct amendments to the document. This view leaves the least (theoretically) room for an abuse of power by the federal government." No other view has enough consistency to be worth it. Judicial Pragmatism leaves more power to the Courts than they were intended to have. It means that the system we have is too easily malleable and too open to abuse. The Constitution gives no indication of this idea either. I fact, as I've said, it was written with the opposite idea in mind. Was the lack of women voting wrong? Yes. So what did they do? They amended the Constitution. You know, they officially changed the law, they didn't add meanings to words. It was up to the people though the states, not 5 justices. "Gay Marriage was wrong then, but not now. Therefore, the Constitution is now changed to include that. Because we, the Supreme Court of the United States, said so." It's not like the Constitution expressly forbids gay marriage and thus must be changed. It's up to the states, which are all moving in that direction anyway. You know, society is changing. The people. Not the un-elected lawyers on the bench. And if the founders decided that these types of issues were to be left to the states, then that's what the Constitution reflects. You are just being impatient. You are making a moral argument, but it's tricky when discussing law. Now I somewhat understand the idea of using your view for social issues. Times do change, but you can't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are judicially amendable! Let's not open Pandora's Box based on the moral views of 50% of the population. The "alternative is not acceptable" is a really shaky way to read laws. We aren't discussing hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. I don't like the above two paragraph much, but this zone gets very tricky to navigate, because we move from the law (one of the foundations of our society) to social justice. The problem remains, the law we have agreed to live by does not operate under that framework, regardless of whether or not you like it. I know generally the ACLU's positions, but their about page is very short and light on substance. Besides, the ACLU is often wrong and guilty of revisionism. But a thread on the ACLU could last years, why don't you at least attempt to tell me how the idea of a living constitution meshes with the Bill of Rights? The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ON INCOMES, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The individual mandate is a "tax" on NOTHING. On simply being a citizen! If you wanted a tax on the subsidies that people under government plans get, then that's fine. But you are FINED for NOT participating. It's as preposterous as Wickard v. Filburn. Besides, your argument is "well the free riders will ruin the system, therefore EVERYONE should be penalized if they do NOT want to be subsidizing them. It will MAKE people join the system." The idea of forcing people into a contract, essentially, is just government coercion. It forces in the free loaders, and the perfectly-within-their-rights citizens who don't WANT healthcare at that time in their life. I think Obamacare is so bad because never in our history have citizens been required to make a purchase or be "taxed." Nevermind the violation of the Commerce Clause. Also, as shown by the union opposition, etc, it's simply a bad law. I directly (and still, very shortly) argued against the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, in terms of those things. I didn't say that citizens don't have a right to privacy. But you missed my statement or something. Judicial pragmatism looks so good because it's easy. "Well, times have changed, guess the Constitution has too! Time to rewrite it!" I feel this discussion is nearing the end. My view is based in a historical (and quite logical) way to read our law, your's would change it on the basis of "need, " essentially. Not entirely irrational, now that you have actually added some clarification. But still not really all too reasonable (or historically logical), IMO. This is a fundamental difference of outlook where your priority is not the law and how to change it legally, but how to change the meaning when you think it's needed. I oppose this idea. I find your pathological fear of the theoretical federal governments abuse -- via courts -- as opposed to state government's real and historical abuse of various racial and sexual minorities confusing.
I fear consolidated power. It's not like the Courts have been great bastions of freedom. Dred Scott, anyone?
And those other things were worked out via amendment, not just changing one's interpretation.
|
On September 27 2013 22:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 20:56 kwizach wrote:
That's why when the bill did pass the House, he desperately tried to find a way to avoid having to recognize that it would accomplish nothing (contrary to what he had previously argued) and keep the spotlight on himself. So you are saying that he's fighting his own bill... And then using that (dishonest) point as evidence that he in fact never wanted to defund Obamacare at all.
If you're interested in having an actual discussion, go back to my previous post and pay attention to what I'm writing. I'm getting tired of you strawmanning your way out of arguments. I never said Ted Cruz did not want to defund the ACA - I'm sure he does. My point was about the political game he is playing around the issue of defunding the ACA. Either you somehow failed to understand a pretty simple post or you're too intellectually dishonest to reply to what I'm actually saying. Either way, I refer you to what I said earlier.
On September 27 2013 22:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 20:56 kwizach wrote:
I'm not the one trying to have it both ways. Ted Cruz is. He only admitted the hopelessness of the initial legislative strategy he had been advocating after it was actually followed, precisely because he thought that it would not be followed. You mean: After the Senate Republicans openly came out saying they would not use a filibuster?
The Senate Republicans using a filibuster was not part of the initial strategy Ted Cruz was advocating with regards to the House passing a bill defunding the ACA. That's the entire point.
On September 27 2013 22:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 20:56 kwizach wrote:
That's why Cruz is putting the onus back on the House: he knows that whatever the House proposes to defund Obamacare cannot possibly pass the Senate and therefore cannot accomplish anything, but the minute they don't pass what he's asking for he can point fingers and blame them and appear as the lone conservative hero in the anti-ACA fight. That you're failing to realize this tells a lot about how much you understand politics. So he tried desperately to push them into passing a bill he didn't want passed and then is going to try desperately to push them into filibustering a bill he doesn't want them to filibuster, and then will try desperately to get them to pass another bill he doesn't want them to pass... No, I understand perfectly. Ted Cruz can't be honest in his convictions because that makes you look bad. So he has to be a liar. And you'll make any mental back-flip you can make to come up with a convoluted explanation that makes him a liar.
Where did I say he did not want Senate Republicans to filibuster the bill? You're trying to obfuscate a pretty simple issue. There's absolutely nothing convoluted about this - Ted Cruz simply did not want the strategy he was advocating to make himself look good to be exposed as politically infeasible. The funny thing is that you admitted yourself that it was infeasible in your previous post, yet you're somehow completely oblivious to the self-interested political calculations of Cruz in pushing it forward. It'd be funny if it wasn't incredibly sad in that it shows how incapable some people are of displaying any hint of critical thinking when it comes to political rhetoric that brushes them the right way.
|
On September 29 2013 14:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:03 Adila wrote:
The so-called Republican concession is red-herring. At the next CR, it'll be back to "LET'S REPEAL OBAMACARE AGAIN".
That's why this is all a waste of time and Obama should not negotiate with them. That's how negotiation works. Nobody should be expected to give up their ideals, but they should definitely be willing to make concessions in the pursuit of achieving that ideal. Republicans are ready and willing to give concessions. They are ready and willing to negotiate. To be bi-partisan. To achieve a solution that isn't all-or-nothing. Democrats are not doing that. They are not willing to give concessions in pursuit of their ideal. They want everything right now or everyone gets to suffer. Well that's not how government should work. I have nothing against a Democrat who is trying to achieve his ideal solution, but they need to be willing to work toward that solution with concessions and not just dig in their heels and stop their ears like a petulant child who's been told, "No, you can't have the ENTIRE cookie jar, you can have one."
The cookies have already been eaten. You're proposing that we shove a spoon down the kid's throat to get him to throw up and collect the partially-digested cookies, or if that's not acceptable, how about compromise and just gag him a little so he just spits up a little? The Republicans aren't offering anything on their side of the deal since passing a budget is their job in the first place. Obama could offer a trillion times what the Republicans are offering: in fact, he has, because 1,000,000,000 * 0 = 0.
|
On September 29 2013 12:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 16:36 IgnE wrote:On September 28 2013 11:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. John D. Rockafeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and many more were born in poverty (Andrew Carnegie), or were born poor. There is great evidence that one's status in birth is not nearly as great limiting factor as you would make it out to be.
You are using anecdotal evidence. Actual evidence, such as studies on economic/social mobility, show that one's status in birth is a very significant factor in one's economic/life trajectory, to a degree that varies across countries (and the US is considerably behind several European countries in terms of opportunity of mobility). With regards to the initial statement you highlighted and criticized ("capital accretes capital"), economist Thomas Piketty's latest book (Le capital au XXIe siècle, which will be published in English under the title Capital in the 21st Century next year) provides the most comprehensive study on the matter and it very clearly shows how capital accretes itself more rapidly than incomes grow, this being a very significant factor in the ever-growing wealth gap between the wealthiest and the less wealthy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
technology revolutions can create new wealth, and destroy old ones. however, examples like carnegie have 2 problems. that was at a time when finance was 'dumb' and capital management was done by owners, rather than distributed to specialists.
secondly, those guys made it big by abusing monopoly power and other things not found in a free market.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 29 2013 15:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:44 Sub40APM wrote:On September 29 2013 15:19 Introvert wrote:On September 29 2013 12:49 DoubleReed wrote:On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote: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. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. 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? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue. You have logically defended nothing. You have simply asserted that your way is the right way. Maybe you're not understanding this. I'm saying that your view is just as bullshit as my view, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You just wave your flag around about what the founders really want, but you haven't determined that at all. You've relied on folk history and bullshit to justify your own biases. And I have yet to call you close-minded. I've called you intellectually dishonest. It's almost like you're just completely ignoring what I'm writing in my posts. You keep asking me to tell you what my view is. I genuinely don't understand what you want from me. So please demonstrate what your view is. I gave you the ACLU website, they explain constitutional and legal things much better than I ever could. I don't know what you want from me. I suppose I could copy and paste things from the Wikipedia entry on Living Constitution, where I would fall under Judicial Pragmatism: This general view has been expressed by the former conservative/now centrist Judge Richard Posner:
"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. Again, Obamacare has a free rider problem. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered, then anybody without health insurance is going to be riding on the taxpayer's expense (this happens to a certain extent now as well). Therefore the tax. As I said in my edit, it's a tax on people riding on the taxpayer's expense. Which is perfectly defensible, except to you, who seems to just simply have a problem with Obamacare. And the way the law works is important to the constitutionality of the law. Judges are supposed to be pragmatic about things. I'm all for limited government powers. We just disagree on Obamacare, which you find so mind-blowing that you accuse me tyranny or something. It's really quite silly, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the free-rider issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is a three-legged stool. Besides, you're the one who directly argued against the idea that citizens have a right to privacy, marriage, and healthcare. And you accuse me of expanding government power? You're not paying attention. This is why I function under pragmatism. So I don't end up looking so silly. If you would like, we could both start citing sources. I feel that neither of us would really like to begin that endeavor, however. Of course I claim my interpretation is right. So do you. They can't both be right! "Folk History." Everything I have made a point with (enumerated powers, equality under the law, originalism's consistency) is based in lots of research and the founders own words. Go read the Federalist papers, anti federalist papers, state convention debates, etc. That's all history, not folk tale. Now obviously they didn't directly discuss the idea of originalism, for obvious reasons. But nowhere did they say "the laws herein are subject to change when 'society' deems it needed." They added the amendment process for that. But you would find it too slow and to inconvenient, I imagine. But my objection still stands. "Judicial Pragmatism" has no historical basis from the ones who wrote and approved the Constitution. This is the part that confuses me. The founders clearly intended that the law be followed a certain way, as I have described. You are simply riding over it when you don't like it. You think this is the better way, and thus should be followed, despite the fact that the law allows for no such thing. It's just a blatant disregard for the system. My view, cleanly stated is that "The Constitution, in all its sections, is to be viewed and interpreted as the founders/amenders intended at the time of ratification. All changes to interpretation must be the result of new historical understand of what the ratifiers meant at the time, or by direct amendments to the document. This view leaves the least (theoretically) room for an abuse of power by the federal government." No other view has enough consistency to be worth it. Judicial Pragmatism leaves more power to the Courts than they were intended to have. It means that the system we have is too easily malleable and too open to abuse. The Constitution gives no indication of this idea either. I fact, as I've said, it was written with the opposite idea in mind. Was the lack of women voting wrong? Yes. So what did they do? They amended the Constitution. You know, they officially changed the law, they didn't add meanings to words. It was up to the people though the states, not 5 justices. "Gay Marriage was wrong then, but not now. Therefore, the Constitution is now changed to include that. Because we, the Supreme Court of the United States, said so." It's not like the Constitution expressly forbids gay marriage and thus must be changed. It's up to the states, which are all moving in that direction anyway. You know, society is changing. The people. Not the un-elected lawyers on the bench. And if the founders decided that these types of issues were to be left to the states, then that's what the Constitution reflects. You are just being impatient. You are making a moral argument, but it's tricky when discussing law. Now I somewhat understand the idea of using your view for social issues. Times do change, but you can't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are judicially amendable! Let's not open Pandora's Box based on the moral views of 50% of the population. The "alternative is not acceptable" is a really shaky way to read laws. We aren't discussing hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. I don't like the above two paragraph much, but this zone gets very tricky to navigate, because we move from the law (one of the foundations of our society) to social justice. The problem remains, the law we have agreed to live by does not operate under that framework, regardless of whether or not you like it. I know generally the ACLU's positions, but their about page is very short and light on substance. Besides, the ACLU is often wrong and guilty of revisionism. But a thread on the ACLU could last years, why don't you at least attempt to tell me how the idea of a living constitution meshes with the Bill of Rights? The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ON INCOMES, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The individual mandate is a "tax" on NOTHING. On simply being a citizen! If you wanted a tax on the subsidies that people under government plans get, then that's fine. But you are FINED for NOT participating. It's as preposterous as Wickard v. Filburn. Besides, your argument is "well the free riders will ruin the system, therefore EVERYONE should be penalized if they do NOT want to be subsidizing them. It will MAKE people join the system." The idea of forcing people into a contract, essentially, is just government coercion. It forces in the free loaders, and the perfectly-within-their-rights citizens who don't WANT healthcare at that time in their life. I think Obamacare is so bad because never in our history have citizens been required to make a purchase or be "taxed." Nevermind the violation of the Commerce Clause. Also, as shown by the union opposition, etc, it's simply a bad law. I directly (and still, very shortly) argued against the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, in terms of those things. I didn't say that citizens don't have a right to privacy. But you missed my statement or something. Judicial pragmatism looks so good because it's easy. "Well, times have changed, guess the Constitution has too! Time to rewrite it!" I feel this discussion is nearing the end. My view is based in a historical (and quite logical) way to read our law, your's would change it on the basis of "need, " essentially. Not entirely irrational, now that you have actually added some clarification. But still not really all too reasonable (or historically logical), IMO. This is a fundamental difference of outlook where your priority is not the law and how to change it legally, but how to change the meaning when you think it's needed. I oppose this idea. I find your pathological fear of the theoretical federal governments abuse -- via courts -- as opposed to state government's real and historical abuse of various racial and sexual minorities confusing. I fear consolidated power. It's not like the Courts have been great bastions of freedom. Dred Scott, anyone? And those other things were worked out via amendment, not just changing one's interpretation.
the power of the court is there whether you are originalist or not. it is a false assumption that originalist interpretationis make the courts neutral.
the court power aligned with other powerful social forces can be dominating, but those interests are very often reactionary.
|
"Folk History." Everything I have made a point with (enumerated powers, equality under the law, originalism's consistency) is based in lots of research and the founders own words. Go read the Federalist papers, anti federalist papers, state convention debates, etc. That's all history, not folk tale. Now obviously they didn't directly discuss the idea of originalism, for obvious reasons. But nowhere did they say "the laws herein are subject to change when 'society' deems it needed."
Yes. They. Did.
Here, Madison says it better than I:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
You are directly contradicting the Ninth Amendment. You are saying that if we want more rights or make rights more inclusive, we have to ratify an amendment. The Ninth Amendment directly contradicts this. Madison directly contradicts this. This is what I've been trying to say about the Ninth Amendment. The whole purpose of it is to deny the originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Honestly, it's a pretty silly thing to say. Of course the Founding Fathers discussed how the Constitution was to be interpreted. And of course they recognized that times-they-are-a-changin'. You only are pretending that they didn't because it fits your nonsensical narrative of originalism.
You may not like it. Maybe you thought Madison was wishy-washy or something. I don't care. But enough of your goddamn folk history.
I think Obamacare is so bad because never in our history have citizens been required to make a purchase or be "taxed." Nevermind the violation of the Commerce Clause. Also, as shown by the union opposition, etc, it's simply a bad law.
You can't be in "violation" of the commerce clause because it discusses a positive power: that Congress can regulate commerce. It wasn't deemed constitutional because of the commerce clause. It was deemed constitutional as a tax, which is another power granted by the constitution. Whether you think it is a bad law is irrelevant. All you are doing is revealing your bias.
Let's be specific about what we're talking about, because you are deliberately making the ruling theoretical so it seems ridiculous. We're talking about health insurance. We're talking about citizens refusing to get health insurance, so when they get sick, other people have to pick up the tab. When you're talking about "freedom" in this case, you're arguing essentially for the "freedom not to get healthcare."
This is one of those Orwellian freedoms, like the "freedom to starve" or the "freedom to choose your own slavemaster." No one with healthcare dreams of being "free" of it.
It doesn't matter if - in other circumstances - taxing citizens for not getting a contract curbs freedom. What matters is that whether it curbs freedom in this case. And if you ask "well who's the judge of that sort of thing?" I will say "judges."
I feel this discussion is nearing the end. My view is based in a historical (and quite logical) way to read our law, your's would change it on the basis of "need, " essentially. Not entirely irrational, now that you have actually added some clarification. But still not really all too reasonable (or historically logical), IMO. This is a fundamental difference of outlook where your priority is not the law and how to change it legally, but how to change the meaning when you think it's needed. I oppose this idea.
Sadly I agree. I don't see you changing your mind. Your view is based on your own biases and interpretation, but you justify it by referring to the amorphous blob "The Founding Fathers." You also believe that the law is to be theoretical and not deal with the real world, while I think the law must be pragmatic above all else. I care not about theoretical freedoms if real people's freedoms are being destroyed. Laws only matter as far as the people that they affect.
|
On September 29 2013 14:43 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. The GOP's so-called "concessions" are meaningless until they agree to not threaten to shut down the government or risk a default the next time they want something. Say that the House bill passes, and the ACA is delayed for a year. What's to stop the GOP from pulling this nonsense next time and once again risking a default in order to get what they want? What if next time they decide that not only defunding the ACA should be linked to keeping the government in business, but they also want a law to be passed defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? What if in the future EVERY time either of the major political parties feels strongly about a policy they threaten a default in order to get what they want? I don't get how any thinking person can believe that this is an acceptable negotiating tactic, or that it is anything but harmful to our already atrocious political system.
If it helps you sleep better there's still very little chance the government will default. The GOP is threatening a shutdown, which, black swans aside, should allow the debt to still be serviced.
Personally I'm tired of the 11th hour hardball deal making. It's been a staple since the financial crisis hit and it's time for politicians still engaged in it to get spanked.
|
On September 30 2013 00:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:43 Mercy13 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. The GOP's so-called "concessions" are meaningless until they agree to not threaten to shut down the government or risk a default the next time they want something. Say that the House bill passes, and the ACA is delayed for a year. What's to stop the GOP from pulling this nonsense next time and once again risking a default in order to get what they want? What if next time they decide that not only defunding the ACA should be linked to keeping the government in business, but they also want a law to be passed defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? What if in the future EVERY time either of the major political parties feels strongly about a policy they threaten a default in order to get what they want? I don't get how any thinking person can believe that this is an acceptable negotiating tactic, or that it is anything but harmful to our already atrocious political system. If it helps you sleep better there's still very little chance the government will default. The GOP is threatening a shutdown, which, black swans aside, should allow the debt to still be serviced. Personally I'm tired of the 11th hour hardball deal making. It's been a staple since the financial crisis hit and it's time for politicians still engaged in it to get spanked.
I'd say there is a 0% chance of a default. We're essentially seeing a rabid animal being cornered and lashing out in an attempt to feel powerful again. The benefit of radicalizing their base and creating the tea party has fizzled. Now its a liability that continues to dig public perception of the GOP a deeper and deeper grave.
|
On September 30 2013 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2013 14:43 Mercy13 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. The GOP's so-called "concessions" are meaningless until they agree to not threaten to shut down the government or risk a default the next time they want something. Say that the House bill passes, and the ACA is delayed for a year. What's to stop the GOP from pulling this nonsense next time and once again risking a default in order to get what they want? What if next time they decide that not only defunding the ACA should be linked to keeping the government in business, but they also want a law to be passed defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? What if in the future EVERY time either of the major political parties feels strongly about a policy they threaten a default in order to get what they want? I don't get how any thinking person can believe that this is an acceptable negotiating tactic, or that it is anything but harmful to our already atrocious political system. If it helps you sleep better there's still very little chance the government will default. The GOP is threatening a shutdown, which, black swans aside, should allow the debt to still be serviced. Personally I'm tired of the 11th hour hardball deal making. It's been a staple since the financial crisis hit and it's time for politicians still engaged in it to get spanked. I'd say there is a 0% chance of a default. We're essentially seeing a rabid animal being cornered and lashing out in an attempt to feel powerful again. The benefit of radicalizing their base and creating the tea party has fizzled. Now its a liability that continues to dig public perception of the GOP a deeper and deeper grave.
Rabid animals can still do lots of damage before they die.
|
|
|
On September 30 2013 02:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwcwQmZElAM
lol
Furloughing hundreds of thousands of workers and possibly creating a recession = creating jobs.
|
On September 30 2013 02:54 DoubleReed wrote:lol Furloughing hundreds of thousands of workers and possibly creating a recession = creating jobs.
If we destroy the public sector, there will be nothing left but efficient private sector jobs! ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
