US Politics Mega-thread - Page 480

On September 30 2013 02:54 DoubleReed wrote:


lol

Furloughing hundreds of thousands of workers and possibly creating a recession = creating jobs.

On September 30 2013 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So... vote yes on the House bill?

On September 29 2013 23:18 DoubleReed wrote:


Yes. They. Did.

Here, Madison says it better than I:



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.




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."



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.

it can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body. - Federalist 78

On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
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."

I've already explained that originalism does not contradict the ninth amendment. It follows the enumerated powers idea, the government only has authority where expressly granted. That's an originalist perspective. The ninth amendment made it clear. And I'm not saying there haven't been good amendments, either. Like I said, my view involves what the amendment meant at the time it was ratified. yes, the 9th was meant as future protection against a legislature trying to find cracks, but that's not a living constitution idea.

This is of course why Obamacare violates the 16th, besides the fact that it's not a tax on incomes.

I simply do NOT trust judges to make those decisions, especially when they were never give that power in the first place. The JUDGES ruled in Dred Scott, the JUDGES ruled in Korematsu, the JUDGES ruled in Wickard, etc. One was fixed via amendment, one just "is" and only one of those has been expressly overruled. That would be Wickard, btw. Which again, tried to get the federal government to intrude into people's lives because they DIDN'T do something.

So I guess we are done. You argue that my view is not historical (flat out incorrect), that times change (true) and that the judges should decide these things (they were never given the power to do so, nor can they be trusted). What would you be saying if Obamacare was found unconstitutional? Did you agree with the Court's ruling on affirmative action? Seriously, this view makes everything so subjective. I despise subjectivity, and the founders feared a government that would simply do things because it wanted to.

Former President Bill Clinton weighed in on an increasingly likely government shutdown in an interview with ABC's 'This Week'. Clinton criticized Republican demands, as well as their obsession with Obamacare.

"I've never seen a time-- can you remember a time in your lifetime when a major political party was just sitting around, begging for America to fail?"

The House voted early Sunday to make major cuts and delays to the Affordable Care Act in exchange for continuing to fund the government. The bill marks the 43rd time that House Republicans have voted to defund or repeal Obamacare. The White House and Senate Democrats have already said that this kind of a demand is a non-starter.

Clinton also said President Obama was right to not take Republican demands seriously.

"If I were the president, I wouldn't negotiate over these draconian cuts that are gonna take food off the table of low-income working people, while they leave all the agricultural subsidies in for high-income farmers and everything else," he said. "It's chilling to me. The entitlement spending is going down as the unemployment rate drops and the economy grows. Half of the deficit's already disappeared. The rest of it just seems almost spiteful."

On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory.

Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician.

On September 30 2013 05:52 DoubleReed wrote:


It is much stronger than the enumerated powers idea. I'm not challenging the "enumerated powers" part, dude. Both originalist and living constitution perspective do that part.

Originalism means you have to take specifically the meaning that the founders meant at the time. Except the founders specifically said that there are rights that they didn't think of. Which means that the founders did not think that they enumerated all the rights of the people. It is a direct rebuke to any textualist or originalist schools of thought. They wanted to law to be flexible with the times to defend rights they did not think of, beyond just the amendment process.

I don't really understand how you're rationalizing this in your head. It seems like a pretty clear contradiction to me.



Okay, seriously. Read John Roberts' Opinion. It has nothing to do with the 16th Amendment. It's not a tax on incomes and nobody ever said it was. It has to do with the Tax and Spending Clause of Constitution, which does not say anything about income tax. Sweet Jesus, you don't even know what you're arguing.

And you can't "violate" a positive power. It doesn't make any sense.

He explains in the opinion why he does not consider it valid under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, but does consider it valid under the Tax and Spending Clause.



This criticism is about our entire judicial system, not the Supreme Court's powers. All judges are given the ability to make their judgement calls about cases. And if their judgements are unfair we have an involved appeals process. It's not a perfect system and perhaps it needs to be overhauled. But keep in mind that making fair and legal decisions is what all judge's jobs essentially are.



The founders fervently disagreed with each other all the time. I think my view less subjective than you might think. I don't think pragmatism is that subjective. And remember, I don't find your view objective at all. You just pretend to be.

On September 30 2013 07:22 Introvert wrote:
Your view of originalism is wrong. Originalism does not contend that the only rights one has are those expressly stated. Not sure where you got that idea.

On September 30 2013 07:28 Mindcrime wrote:


He probably got that idea from Robert "the ninth amendment is an ink blot" Bork, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Though originalism can certainly take other forms; personally, I quite admire Lysander Spooner's brand of originalism.

It's a tax for NOT doing something. It's like taxing people for NOT driving a car. "You are going to clog the crosswalks, making the cars (and more people) wait longer. Buy a car or else."

By your view one could never disagree with a court decision, because then that decisions becomes the new, best way to read the law! That's insane.

Oh, I had forgotten about the best part! He REINTERPRETED what congress passed (a penalty) and MADE it a tax, on his own volition, as the dissent explained. He wanted it to be a tax!

On September 30 2013 07:43 Introvert wrote:


I still think it's a very delicate subject. But I contend that what we assert as rights must actually be rights. I already briefly mentioned that with regard to the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade, but you can't make up rights out of nothing, there has to be some source and reason behind them. Like I said, it's very complicated.

On September 30 2013 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:


No it is not. If you do not drive a car, I do not have to pay for your metro tickets. If you do not have health insurance, then indirectly, the taxpayer is paying for whenever you go to the emergency room.

You were the one that said that making other people pay for your healthcare is unacceptable. You were the one that said that. That is precisely what the individual mandate is avoiding. Trying to relate it to other purchases ignores this highly relevant fact.

This does not open up the possibility of the legislative branch forcing people to eat broccoli. It is quite narrow.



I have no idea where you got this idea from. I think you're responding too quickly. I disagree with plenty of court decisions. I obviously disagree with lots of justices.

But it is a fact of judicial precedent that decisions become the basis of how to read the law. Maybe that's what you mean? That's true, but I'm pretty sure that's true regardless of whether the constitution is living or dead.



Yes, the judicial branch interprets the law. That is their enumerated job.

On September 30 2013 07:59 Introvert wrote:


I did say it was unacceptable. But anyone who pays the fine and goes the ER.. well the taxpayer still ends up paying for it. Always going to happen when hospitals are required to treat patients. But my problem is that the mandate is simply not Constitutional. If it was, I wouldn't have as much of a problem. We tax people for things, not for NOT doing things. Those a penalties. And in the economic case, also unconstitutional.

On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory.

Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician.

On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician.

I did say it was unacceptable. But anyone who pays the fine and goes the ER.. well the taxpayer still ends up paying for it. Always going to happen when hospitals are required to treat patients.

Your view relies on the justices interpretations, wrong or right. You say that our views should change with the times, as with the rulings. Well who decides when things change? You? Five lawyers? Do you see my concern? That's what makes the idea silly.

On September 30 2013 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:


I don't understand. This is how the world actually works, whether you like it or not. Plessy v Ferguson said that Separate But Equal was Constitutional. And then 50 years later Brown v Board of Education overturned that.

I'm very confused about what you want. I understand that you disagree with Roberts on Obamacare, but that just sounds like you two have different interpretations. It's not even a difference of originalism v living constitution.

It sounds to me like you never want things to change, you never want people's rights to expand, and people should only gain more rights and more inclusive rights through amendments. You want Separate But Equal to be an Amendment? You want Interracial Marriage to be an Amendment? It sounds to me like you want the courts to be ineffectual and powerless to defend people's rights.

The NSA perfectly has the power to collect data on everyone due to protecting National Security. The only thing stopping them is a modernized view of the 4th Amendment, which says that people need probable cause and a warrant for search and seizure. But that only works in living constitution terms as far as I know, considering the founding fathers certainly never thought to protect against massive automatic computerized data collection. That certainly can't be their intent. So do we need an Amendment to make the 4th Amendment technology invariant now?