Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 359
view profile
History
HealthcarePage 31 of 46    (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)

Even if Republicans gain control over both houes, it's impossible they can obtain the majority necessary to overturn the bill.


If Mr. Obama had the stones to get into an all-out war with a Republican Congress, despite his mediocre popularity ratings, he could veto every repealer bill they presented to him. And they wouldn't have the two-thirds majority of both houses needed to override those vetos. But at that point, what would make him so sure he wouldn't be impeached? Or even impeached and convicted?

I don't see that happening, but if Obama loses both Houses of Congress, he'll have to be careful how hard he pushes. A hostile Congress can push back--all the harder, when a President's not protected by his popularity. Even a Republican majority in the House will open the way for a lot of hearings that could well hurt Obama's popularity even more, by exposing things his administration has done. And a Republican Congress could refuse to vote the funds needed for programs the President favors. His veto would be no good then--he can't veto a *refusal* to pass a bill.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 360
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:38:44 PM

That's what I think of the Arizona law being a non-white person.....the same as getting a traffic ticket by video for being a fast-driving person. It's unwanted, and Arizonas have the right to let the people they don't like know exactly how unwanted they are, I get it. They want the right to be a-holes, let 'em.


I needed a good laugh today. You say you'd like to see employers "become criminally liable for checking work permits." Anyone who had read SB 1070 would know that not just one section of it, but three--7, 8, and 9--make it a crime for any employer knowingly or intentionally to hire an illegal alien and describe the related penalties, the recommended reporting forms and procedures, the e-verification system employers should use, the eligibility of employers registered as using it for government business grants, the employment records they must keep, and so on and on. And yes, Judge Bolton's order left all these sections as they are.

You also claim you'd like to see entry "enforced." I don't know how anyone would enforce an entry. But if you mean you'd like to see U.S. *laws* about entry into this country--i.e. its immigration laws--enforced, your claim rings pretty hollow. Enforcing those laws is the central purpose of SB 1070, the law you condemn and call the people of Arizona an obscene name for enacting. That's incoherent--like claiming you'd like to see the cops do something about all the thieves who are breaking and entering houses, while at the same time condemning the burglary statute for unfairly depriving these poor people of their livelihoods.

It's funny enough to see you use a law you've obviously never even read as evidence the people of Arizona deserve your slanders for passing it. It's even funnier when you cast your opinion of that law in terms of your race--"being a non-white person." I'm sure that by doing these things, you've made it easy for everyone to decide how seriously to take your views about SB 1070.


Nice. Sure you're looking forward to that too, Imean you don't want people to break the law and all.


Heavens, no, we don't want that. But I think *you* may. As I recall, you mentioned in one of your early posts that the police stopped you and some members of your family in some other state for some violation. You complained in that post, too, about how they delayed and hassled you. I was all prepared to be outraged, because as we all know, the police are invariably mean, jackbooted rednecks who go out of their way to pick on "non-whites." But just then, you let it slip that whoever was driving--your sister, I think--was doing so without a license.

Now I understand. You were speeding in Arizona, but "being a fast-driving person," you had a *right* to. For your family, apparently--although not for the rest of us--speeding and driving without a driver's license are inalienable rights. And any policeman (or camera--not all cameras, mind you, but Canons and Leicas, especially, are infamous for being racially biased and xenophobic) that fails to recognize your exalted status has let you know you're people they don't like and that you're unwanted in that state.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 361
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 1:57:24 PM

She was detained because my sister, the passenger did not have her ID with her. This was not when they were crossing the border, but rather just a random check point in El Paso, TX.


So what? The Supreme Court has upheld those random checkpoints. You don't say whether your sister was a U.S. citizen. But most of us, whether we're driving or not, don't go too far without a driver's license or some other kind of ID. If she'd had one, they would have had no reason to delay you.


They had no idea if she was a citizen or not, just that she was travelling with a woman who was not, and that was enough to detain her until they could do a background check.


Of course it was enough. SB 1070, incidentally, requires a "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone and ask for evidence they're in the U.S. legally. And if they have even a valid driver's license, the police have to presume they are. That adds protection to one of the federal immigration statutes it requires Arizona officials to enforce--the one which says every alien 18 or older must carry their green card on their person at all times.

Federal officials can enforce that law with no justification at all, except a hunch--they don't even need a reasonable suspicion. It was first enacted in 1940, and Congress has amended various details of its wording, etc. several times, while choosing to leave its main features intact. By your logic, then, Americans in general must be even bigger "a-holes" and racists than Arizonans.


The good thing is that she was not detained for long because the operation was ran by ICE, not some local police dept. that probably would have kept her in detention until they got word from ICE, and therein lies one of the problems.


So you speculate, based on nothing at all. A federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c), says the federal immigration authorities:

shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Obviously, some federal office maintains a large amount of information and communicates it through this system. Why have the whole thing, and pretend it's there for states to use, if it's useless? And why should it only be useless when used for a purpose you don't like?

SB 1070 specifically recognizes that ICE or CBC can ascertain the immigration status of the person detained under 1373 (c), as well as Arizona officials the feds have authorized to do it. Arizona has already been using this system, and I haven't seen anything by anyone familiar with it that suggests any unreasonable delays would be likely.


Slander? Because they did something I didn't like and I expressed my feeling about it?


Yes--expressed it by calling the people of Arizona "a-holes" and strongly implying they're racists.


Apparently you misunderstand the law too, now that the court's ruled on it and SB1070 did not stand the challenge, as I supected.


Thanks for providing us all another laugh. You--never having even laid eyes on SB 1070, let alone understood it in any detail--suspected this judge would do what she did. Maybe a little bird told you.

And now that Ms. Susan Bolton *has* prostituted herself, her decision proves that anyone who believes all of SB 1070 is perfectly constitutional must be wrong. That is just the sort of "logic" we've come to expect from you. It means that federal district court judges invariably make the right call, which makes appealing their decisions a waste of time and money. But then what explains all those shelves of volumes full of tens of thousands of cases in which district court decisions were overturned on appeal?

I'm not going to analyze Bolton's order much here--but it's an illegitimate piece of trash which flagrantly ignores the U.S. Constitution and the federal laws she's sworn to follow. I'll give just one example. The Supreme Court has clearly explained the legal standard for "facial" constitutional challenges like this suit. Among other things, that standard requires judges to consider *only* what the law in question says on its face, and *not* to consider how it would apply in any hypothetical situations.

Bolton dutifully (and dishonestly) repeats that legal standard--and then proceeds to ignore it. She wanders off into a exactly the kind of hypothetical situation she knew the Supreme Court had explicitly said she must not consider in this kind of suit. She imagines a legal Chilean immigrant walking his dog one evening, when Sheriff Smith stops him for not using a leash. Smith takes this poor legal alien to jail, where he's inconvenienced for eight hours while his immigration status is verified. All that's missing is the melodramatic touch, inspired by so many WWII movies, that the ignoramuses who oppose SB 1070 like so much--the part where the jackbooted Arizona Gestapo ask for his "papers."

Why don't you just come right out and say that you resent this country, don't believe in its sovereignty, and don't want its laws enforced unless they happen to meet with your approval? You might as well--you've made all that pretty clear.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 362
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 3:08:47 PM

Surely, not ever being leave the house without a wallet or purse is kind of oppressive.


Oh, yes. I can't tell you the agony and sense of police-state oppression it causes me to think I need to take my wallet and keys with me when I leave the house. And all that weight and bulk of a driver's license! There ought to be a law.


I know you really want to go into debating legalities of the Arizona law, but I'm not biting. I already told you why I opposed it, I don't need your interpretation, and I say that respectfully. It doesn't matter because it doesn't pass my smell test, and that's all that matters to me.


You couldn't be more wrong. I have no intention of wasting my time debating SB 1070 with you or anyone else who has no idea what it says. And nothing I've written about my interpretation of it has been meant to persuade you.

It's fine with me just to have you demonstrate so well that your opinions of it aren't based in facts or reason--i.e. the product of any real "thinking"--but are just arbitrary emotional responses. A smell test means very little when there's so much olfactory impairment. Like anyone else, you have every right to your opinions about SB 1070, whatever you base them on. And whoever reads them has every right to decide how much weight to give them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 363
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 8:27:52 AM

“The federal government – yes – can do most anything in this country,”


Stark is too dense to understand much of the Constitution--and what he does understand, I'm sure he doesn't like. When unprincipled dopes like him have the power to make laws, they're a threat to all our freedoms. He's not fit to serve in Congress, and the fact he and dozens of others just as sorry do is no compliment to our electorate.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that it *can* use it to control a lot of our everyday lives. And if the government ever has to defend this health care law in court, the Commerce Clause is what it will probably rely on. Nothing else in the Constitution extends Congress's reach any further into our lives.

But here's the point--just because the Court is reluctant to call Congress for abusing this power, it doesn't mean *we* can't. In a sense, the Court has just left it to the voters to decide when Congress has gone too far. If enough of us think it shouldn't be able to pass a law which forces us to buy health insurance, we can repeal all 2,000-plus pages of that law with one short paragraph. And even before then, we can punish some of the members of Congress who voted for it by removing them from office.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 364
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 3:42:10 PM

You guys should quit cherry picking what you want to whine about as being a government infringement on your personal rights because you guys are just as guilty.


Not so. First, you're assuming that just because the Court hasn't decided any challenge to this health care law yet, it must not violate anything in the Constitution. But the Court doesn't reach out and take cases--it only decides whether to hear cases that are filed with it. And that may not happen for years after a law's enacted. The health care law might pass muster, or not--who knows?

There's a perfectly good reason to oppose Roe v. Wade and the Court's other abortion decisions: They invent a constitutional "right" the Constitution doesn't guarantee. No one needs to apologize for believing that Supreme Court Justices have no authority to rewrite the Constitution to suit their personal preferences. The claim that respecting and insisting on the rule of law is a sign of bigotry or an urge to oppress anyone doesn't deserve any response, except that it's a cheap, irrational insult. Someone could just as easily say that people who ignore the Constitution to get what they want hate liberty and like to dictate to everyone else.


It's probably because the Costitution gives Congress the right to pass laws


Yes--but not just *any* laws. Congress has no authority to pass any law which violates the Constitution. Neither does any state legislature, except where the law's at odds with one of the few parts of the Constitution (e.g. the 7th Amendment) that don't apply to the states. A law that authorized slavery, for example, would violate the 13th Amendment right on the face of it.


Health care is for the betterment of a society, which other societies already recognize, and your impositions are just hateful and harmful.


Euthanasia was all the rage among the philosophical ancestors of todays leftists, before the Nazis gave it a bad name and it was gradually replaced by abortion. (It lives on in the death panels this law would establish to decide people's fate.) The purpose of euthanasia, too, was the betterment of society, and for decades, lots of influential people in this country and in Europe sang its praises. So, I guess, it must also be hateful and harmful to oppose euthanizing people.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 365
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:34:56 AM

A federal judge in Virginia said Monday he will allow the state to proceed with its legal challenge to President Obama's health care reform initiative,


I'm with Mark Levin on this one. I don't trust the courts to uphold the Constitution--it's too uncertain to rely on. That prostitute of a federal judge in Arizona is a good example. The only sure way to stop these things is through political means--by getting the people responsible out of government and then starting to undo the damage they've done.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 366
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 10:24:13 AM

Another Republican judge that will be pillaried for not ruling in your favor


I don't think the fact Judge Bolton supported McCain means a thing here. And it was Mr. Clinton who appointed her. I've seen all sorts of rulings I didn't agree with--that's hardly a shock. But in this case, the judge no sooner had recited the law which applies than she blithely ignored it. She doesn't deserve to sit on the federal bench--not because I disagree with the result of this preliminary injunction, but because she proved just how unprincipled she is. Whether the Ninth Circuit upholds this injunction on appeal depends on what three judges make up the panel which hears it. Or, all the judges on the Circuit might decide it, en banc.

If judges refuse to follow the law, and higher courts conspire with them to do the same thing, we're all in big trouble. It's true that any U.S. President can exercise some discretion in enforcing federal laws. But that doesn't mean they're free not only to ignore federal laws entirely, but also to prevent states from enforcing them. We don't have kings in America--or so we've always thought, at least. The Constitution also obligates every president to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced. Mr. Obama has made his contempt for this country and its Constitution clear in this matter, too. His only concern is giving millions of illegal aliens amnesty so they can vote for his welfare state. And he couldn't care less whether he violates the Constitution, permanently harms this country, abuses his power, or gets lots of innocent Arizonans injured or even killed by illegal alien kidnappers, smugglers, and murderers to do it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 367
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 10:44:36 AM

The claim that respecting and insisting on the rule of law is a sign of bigotry or an urge to oppress anyone doesn't deserve any response, except that it's a cheap, irrational insult.


Not necessarily. There have been plenty of precedents of people using a procedural interpretation to mask an elitist/racist agenda. After a century of Jim Crow and "separate but equal," we all have a right to be suspicious of the motives of those who claim a strict interpretation that might well violate the spirit of the Constitution--which was to guarantee the supremacy of individual rights over government powers and equal regard over prejudice (hence the Establishment clause, freedom of association, etc.)

To refuse to be accountable for one's motives is prima facie evidence that they are ulterior, and you know it. There is nothing insulting at all about being asked to account for your motives. And if you take it that way, others have a right to wonder what you're hiding from yourself as much as from them.

So, whenver take an action that has the effect of disenfranchising someone already in an already vulnerable position, you have an obligation to be accountable for your motives. It is not enough to say that you are just following the law. Lots of good Germans did that.

There are all sorts of ways to follow the law. And one way is to engage in the lawful means of changing laws that create disproportionate hardships.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 368
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 12:24:05 PM

we all have a right to be suspicious of the motives of those who claim a strict interpretation that might well violate the spirit of the Constitution


I don't know what the "spirit of the Constitution" is, except the kind of phrase that's used to justify ignoring what it says. Whole books have been written about the balance between the 14th Amendment and the states' inherent police powers. Same with whether the Court affected this balance by reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause--the most important one in the 14th Am.--out of existence in the "Slaughter-House Cases," only five years after it was ratified. So I'm not going to get into all that here. The only legitimate readings of the Constitution are the ones which reasonably interpret what its authors meant by their words. To do anything else is just to substitute your own views for what it says, which no one has authority to do.


To refuse to be accountable for one's motives is prima facie evidence that they are ulterior, and you know it.


Not only do I not know that, I couldn't disagree with it more. Unless there's very good reason to think a person has a bad motive for saying something, I like to limit my argument to what he's saying. That's what debating is all about. Accusing someone of bad faith arbitrarily, or citing it to attack his argument, is the equivalent of a low blow in the boxing ring. It's usually a good sign of someone who hasn't got much else to rely on. I've never asked anyone here to explain their motives for saying anything, and I'm not about to do that myself.


There are all sorts of ways to follow the law. And one way is to engage in the lawful means of changing laws that create disproportionate hardships.


Of course. And that's all well and good. If a state or federal law is creating some unfair hardship, a majority of the people within that law's jurisdiction can change or repeal it. That happens all the time. If most Alabamans believe disenfranchising their state's felons causes them an unfair hardship, the state legislature can change the law to give them the vote. And the men who wrote the Constitution devoted Article V to describing several procedures for amending it, when changed conditions require that.

But the very fact those procedures are provided underscores that judges have no authority to make de facto constitutional amendments in their decisions. When they do--and Roe v. Wade was just one especially flagrant example out of many--they are substituting what Hayek called the rule of man for the rule of law. And to do that is a lawless, arbitrary act which undermines the Constitution and public respect for both our laws and courts. The law of man--rule by whim--is what's at work in tyrannies, and free people can't afford ever to tolerate or excuse it. Many of them are doing just that now, and it is risking the freedom of us all.

I don't care how smart or learned any Supreme Court Justice is. The whole point of our system of self-government in a democratic republic is that individuals are corruptible and are never to be trusted with too much power. If anyone wants to think these aren't valid reasons for me or anyone else to be a conservative, they must also think they weren't valid reasons for designing this government the way the Constitution did. I support the same political philosophy as most of the Framers, for most of the same reasons.
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 369
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:25:37 PM
^^^^^^^Excelllent post, matchlight; thank you for it.




Ever notice everything you lefties use to justify your beliefs is about you and your needs? Do you notice excessive discussion of your *rights* and never a mention of your obligations?~GulfCoast~

That is because they do not think they have any obligations to our society. This is especially true among the most recent immigrants, almost all of who lean left.


Why yes, I agree. And that's because we only know enough to talk about our selves~.ThinkinginCA~

Or care enough.

vvvvvvv


I was listening to a psychiatrist today explaining that when he began practicing decades ago the primary patient symptom was excessive guilt. It is now excessive narcissism.~Gulfcoast~

How apropos a statement in this discussion.


Being an immigrant myself,~thinking in~

You should be more grateful for the country that has let you enter; contrary to your statement, no one forced your entry here. Immigrants use to honor our laws for that is the main reason they and you are here.

I am disappointed by the Asian, mostly pacific rim immigrants, who although seeking all America has to offer give very little back. I hardly ever see them in our armed forces for instance. Since we are in a state of war I believe all immigrants should serve a stint in the armed forces as part of their requirements for citizenship and that includes women as well.


If a state or federal law is creating some unfair hardship, a majority of the people within that law's jurisdiction can change or repeal it.


This health care bill is a good example of this; we should all be writing our congressmen and senators to start a repeal process of this unconstitutional “Health care law”. But, unfortunately our government no longer listens to the people.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:43:31 PM

So, whenver take an action that has the effect of disenfranchising someone already in an already vulnerable position, you have an obligation to be accountable for your motives. It is not enough to say that you are just following the law. Lots of good Germans did that.


I think you'll find that some of the Nazis tried at Nurmberg and elsewhere defended their crimes by claiming they had their orders--not by claiming they were following any law. In this country, no one's required to obey a clearly unconstitutional law. If you violate a law like that in good faith to test its constitutionality, that reason is a defense even if the court upholds the law. And if it doesn't, what you violated was never really a law.

Our Constitution doesn't authorize laws which do what you seem to be describing, which is something grossly unfair. If a state or federal law does that kind of thing to everyone for no good reason, it will probably violate the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law. If it just does it to a certain group of people for no good reason, it will probably violate the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

But that doesn't mean the Constitution guarantees everyone perfect fairness, or freedom from unpleasant consequences. It clearly authorizes a death penalty, for example--it just prohibits the government from depriving anyone of life without due process of law, for instance by executing them without a trial, or for some minor offense. That is just lynching.

The 13th Amendment specifically allows involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes, too--that's the reason prisoners can be made to pick up trash along the roads, clear trails, fight fires, etc. And if someone with a very similar house near yours pays only a quarter of the property tax you do because they're covered under Prop. 13, that's just too bad. Don't even think about an equal protection suit. And I could give a lot more examples. The law's never completely fair to everyone, and it never can be--but as long as our laws respect our Constitution, they won't go too far wrong.
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 371
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:06:36 AM

Lets put the colored folks out on the front line against their will...because that's not really racist. Oh my.


This is a stupid statement. Our white American young men are on the front lines willingly. Why should the immigrant cowards not also fight for the country they so desperately want to adopt? There is a price for the freedoms we have here; unfortunately it is a high price and not all of it should be paid by the American born.

The racist card is dead, only bigots use this tired and tried refrain now.

Recent immigrants should be ashamed of themselves for the little reverence they show in helping to defend and maintain American freedoms; rather than only taking advantage of our generosity they should show their gratitude in being granted American citizenship by joining the armed forces.

And since most do not, we should make serving in the armed forces a requisite for American citizenship.


Meow....hiss, hiss.....should I also kowtow? To whom would like me to show my "appreciation"?


I think it is unfortunate and a bad day for America that most recent immigrants are of this mind set. I still remember the Ellis Island films of immigrants kissing American soil when they landed here.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 372
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:45:59 AM

A good thing that we can still expect even Republican judges to follow the law and adjudicate accordingly


I see you're pretending, once again, to know what you're talking about regarding SB 1070. You've never even read it and don't know the first thing about it, but someone who lacks the grace to acknowledge their ignorance of a subject isn't about to let little details like that get in the way. And so you prattle on, as vapidly as ever, about Judge Bolton's presumed judicial integrity and adherence to the law. Maybe the sterling quality of her legal reasoning was revealed to you in a trance, or by reading tea leaves.

Next, I expect you'll be telling us what a trustworthy, reasonable statesman Mr. Ahmedinejad is, while doubting the sanity of anyone who says otherwise. But please keep shooting yourself in the foot. It's been quite a while since we've watched anyone discredit themselves and their half-baked notions so thoroughly here.
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 373
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 1:47:12 AM


A good thing that we can still expect even Republican judges to follow the law and adjudicate accordingly~allthinkin~


I see you're pretending, once again, to know what you're talking about regarding SB 1070. You've never even read it and don't know the first thing about it, but someone who lacks the grace to acknowledge their ignorance of a subject isn't about to let little details like that get in the way. And so you prattle on, as vapidly as ever, about Judge Bolton's presumed judicial integrity and adherence to the law

It's been quite a while since we've watched anyone discredit themselves and their half-baked notions so thoroughly here.~match light~

+1



People that now travel and live in other countries should fight their wars while living in those countries? Wow. I missed that part of civic lesson.

That statement, like others, makes no sense. Perhaps you missed more than civic lessons.



But if you think it should be mandated that all immigrants have to enter the military service, maybe you should try selling it to the Tea Party...I'm sure that will be another issue they'll be happy to adopt.


It is completely unnecessary for me to “sell” anything to anyone. It is a premise, immigrants should serve in the armed forces as requisite to citizenship, that many Americans want to see happen. Way too many immigrants just languish on welfare or turn to crime. A special armed forces section should be implemented.

I seriously doubt that you can be sure of anything the Tea Party want to do.


I'm not sure about the military, because we don't need people there, who don't want to serve,

Well, we had the draft in the Second World War and Vietnam, so why not now?

I realize how special an all volunteer force is, but still we need more troops and too many of these immigrants are of the, “I’m here for the goodies” mindset with no loyalty to America. Perhaps they would rethink applying for citizenship if they realized they had to be willing to risk as much as Americans do to live within our free society.



Edit: Think it was something I said scared off troll
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 374
view profile
History
Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 11:20:34 AM

should they all be obligated to fight for the military of their host countries?


Some of them are happy to do it, as long as the enemy is the U.S. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He mentored two of the 9/11 hijackers for a year and a half, first in San Diego, and then in Virginia. But when things got too hot after 9/11, he left to live in Yemen, where his family had come from.

He's continued to serve as one of Al Qaeda's best recruiters and propagandists. He gave his blessing, in a series of e-mails in December, 2008, to Dr. Nidal "Porky" Hasan's idea of taking up arms against his country. Satisfied by Awlaki that Allah was smiling on his plan to smite the Great Satan, this hero waited and brooded for several months--and then murdered thirteen unarmed people at Ft. Hood.

Mr. Obama has ordered Awlaki (and several other U.S. citizens associated with Al Qaeda) to be tracked down and killed. No questions. No trial. No nothing. But why should something as ridiculous as the U.S. Constitution stand in his way? Since when can't Our Emperor do whatever he pleases?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 375
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/13/2010 10:21:58 PM
^^^^I haven't read any of the states' briefs on this, but I think the 10th Am. figures in some of them. Unfortunately, O'Connor (a pretty mediocre justice) may have been the one who was the most interested in it. She sort of revived it in the early '90's.

The government's arguing that forcing people to buy government-approved health insurance, on penalty of a tax or even prison time, falls within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

But if Congress has the power to make people buy certain goods and services, it also must have the power to make someone provide those goods and services--how else could those things be available to buy?

And if Congress can specify who buys and who produces one good or service, then it can do the same for others. In fact, it can then do that for all goods and services in the whole economy.

To authorize that though, would be nothing short of using the Commerce Clause to authorize a planned, centralized, Soviet-style economy. And if that isn't fundamentally unconstitutional, what the he!! was the Cold War about? And what the he!! would *any* limits in the Constitution mean any longer?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 376
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 10:31:26 AM
^^^^I expect that law will either be repealed by Congress in 2013, or struck down by the Court. I don't know how any part of it can work, unless we all can be forced to buy government-approved medical insurance.

And that mandate, which is right at the heart of this law, relies completely on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The federal judge who authorized the state suits against this law said the government can't claim that Congress can't impose a tax penalty for not complying with the mandate under its constitutional authority to tax.

The Court has said the Commerce Clause gives Congress power to engage in three general types of regulation (i.e. by passing federal laws):
1. It can regulate the channels of interstate commerce {e.g. a highway that crosses state lines);
2. it can regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (e.g. semi trucks, telephones), and persons and things in that commerce (e.g. passengers, freight); and
3. it can regulate activities that *substantially affect* interstate commerce.

It's this third area that's involved here. The Court held in 1942 that a federal law regulating agricultural prices could prevent a farmer from keeping part of his wheat crop for his own use. Why? Because even though that farmer's action was local, and not commerce, it was part of a "class of economic activities" which had a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

The Court said that when it was reasonable for Congress to decide that the "total incidence" of that kind of individual practice threatened a national market, it could regulate the entire class. Congress could control what one farmer did locally, because if many of them did the same kind of thing, it would affect interstate commerce in wheat.

In 2005, in another Commerce Clause case, the Court applied almost the same reasoning to hold that federal law could reach and prohibit even local, individual cultivation of marijuana for medical use.

There's interstate commerce in medical insurance policies, just as there is in wheat or marijuana. But the same reasoning wouldn't fit here. In those cases, it was the thing the people themselves were doing which--if everybody did it--could affect interstate commerce.

What the health care law prohibits, though, is NOT buying insurance. It's not that you'd be growing something to consume yourself, so that if many people did that, it would have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce in the thing you were growing. The persons engaging in the commercial activity would be the insurance companies selling policies, and the people buying them.

And yet the law would not penalize those companies or those buyers, but the people who *failed* to buy their policies. They'd be penalized with a tax or even jail time for doing absolutely nothing. If that doesn't unconstitutionally deprive people of property or liberty without due process of law, I don't know what ever could.

I can't see the Court upholding that mandate. That would be going way beyond even its most radical Commerce Clause decisions, like the two I mentioned. It would literally be authorizing a Soviet-style planned economy, which would make a lot--if not most--of the Constitution meaningless.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 377
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 4:01:53 PM
^^^^^It wouldn't surprise me if they managed to dodge it until Congress can repeal it. When it's jumped in to do what Congress was about to do anyway, it's usually been to add its voice to the chorus. For example, the Court held in the early 1960's, on 13th Amendment grounds, that renters and sellers of housing couldn't discriminate against blacks--when it knew Congress was about to do the same thing by passing the Civil Rights Act.

Once we had a Republican president, so a veto was no longer a concern, you'd only need to get a few Democrats for a majority vote in the Senate. The House vote will already be a lock. The law is such a labyrinth that almost no one knows exactly what all 2,800 pages of it say. So I think the best thing might be a simple repealer act:

A. "The _________(Health Care) Act of 2009 is repealed in its entirety.

B. No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any challenge to section A. of this article."

If money had already been allocated for parts of it, other short laws could require whatever had not been spent to be returned to the Treasury. Other laws might dissolve whatever agencies and positions had been created to administer this program, or the funds to run them could just be cut off.

The idea behind the second part would be to prevent all sorts of suits designed to keep the thing alive. Congress probably couldn't remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this, but it could certainly remove it from all the lower federal courts. And the Supreme Court would no more want to contest Congress's power to repeal such an unpopular law, than it wants to decide that law before Congress can repeal it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 378
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/13/2010 1:03:50 PM
^^^^^I'm going to try to read the decision today. But there are a couple good things about all this. First, it goes to the 4th Circuit next, which is generally about the most conservative of all the appeals court circuits and has some very impressive conservative justices. Second, Justice Kennedy, who's the swing vote, has shown strong signs in several decisions that he now leans toward the four conservatives. His vote, with theirs, would be enough to strike down the health care law. That makes it less important whether Ms. Kagan recuses herself, as she should, but probably won't. She proved in her confirmation hearings how little character she has--she's Obama's trusty rubber stamp.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 379
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/13/2010 5:50:12 PM
In March, a number of states challenged the health care law. She was Solicitor General at the time. She may not have directly worked on this matter, in the sense of drafting a brief, etc. But it's awfully hard to imagine that she wasn't closely involved in giving the administration legal advice on handling the challenge, or didn't express her opinion on its merits.

Maybe it's just that after watching her weasel and fib her way through the charade the Senate confirmation process has become, and knowing the trendy way she fawned over shariah when she was Dean of Yale Law School, I don't have much respect for her. I'd like her to convince me I'm wrong by showing, just once, that she has the character of, oh, say, Robert Bork--whose legal and personal qualifications to sit on the Court made hers look puny. She is Obama's lapdog.

BTW, I should clear up a point. It's possible the 4th Circuit won't hear the appeal from this. The Supreme Court could decide to take the case directly.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 380
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 1/31/2011 8:39:26 PM
^^^^^Agreed, and thanks, Judge Vinson. From what I can find out, the two Commerce Clause cases the government is citing as authority are Wickard v. Filburn, from 1942, and Raich v. Gonzalez, the 2005 marijuana case.

A couple big differences, though. In Wickard, the Court said the farmer couldn't keep part of his wheat crop for his livestock, because if everyone could do that the *cumulative* effect on interstate commerce in wheat (and therefore prices) would be substantial. So Congress had authority to prohibit that.

But the farmer was *already growing wheat.* It's one thing to uphold a New Deal agricultural law which made him put his whole crop on the market, instead of just part of it. But it's something else again to require people who *do NOT already have health insurance* to buy policies--especially when a lot of them would rather not.

Raich says that Congress can regulate any activity (here, growing six marijuana plants for local use) which has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and is an essential part of a larger scheme of regulating economic activity.

The Court said that even though the plants never travelled interstate, using them locally had a substantial effect on interstate commerce in marijuana. And it was that commerce, that multi-billion dollar economic activity, which Congress meant to control with the Controlled Substances Act--the "larger regulatory scheme" in this case.

Justice Thomas, dissenting, noted that the majority defined "economic activity" as the "production, distribution, and consumption of commodities." He said this was so broad it must mean that Congress:

"may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance . . . that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 381
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/20/2011 1:31:32 AM
There is no future here, only a long drying out of the facts.

The USA (feds) are buried in red ink, and inflation is now showing in food, gas and other commidities. But the states and cities are in debt up to there A**. The USA as a whole is being held capative by public unions, and corrupt politicians.

Things are not changing with government workers retiring with 80 to 120% of full pay with less than 30 years service. But wait this includes full medical and dental.

My father was blue collar and stood on lines to defend the rights of workers, but would be ashmed of what they are asking for by todays standards. In fact I would not want to be associated with the government workers of today. They are self serving greedy and don't put in a good days work.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 382
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 4:57:37 PM
^^^^I think our government SHOULD MAKE people do what's good for them. So many Americans--especially in flyover country--are so ignorant! They just don't have a clue. And forget about all that constitution stuff those dumb, Faux News-watching Palinites are always spouting off about. I mean, hellooo?--this is 2011! We can't afford to let an old outmoded piece of paper written by some dead white male slave owners stand in the way, when we already know what's good and right and fair. Go Barry and Michelle--just do it!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 383
view profile
History
Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 10:37:59 PM
^^^^^As I understand it, the government is using two Commerce Clause cases as authority for the idea it can force people to buy health insurance: Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). I won't lay out the arguments for and against here, but I don't think the reasoning in Wickard would cut much ice here. But Raich sort of bothers me, if this goes to the Supreme Court.

Raich was the case where a disabled California woman had six marijuana plants. A friend tended to them, and she made various potions out of the pot. This was OK under California law. The issue was whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was adequate authority for applying a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, to prohibit what Raich was doing.

None of the marijuana involved ever moved out of California. But activities within a state, even if they're not economic, come within the reach of the Commerce Clause if they have a substantial indirect effect on interstate commerce.

The Court watchers were really anxious to see how this turned out, because it raised an interesting question. Would the conservatives on the Court side with California out of support for federalism and a desire to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause; or would they favor federal control of marijuana out of concern for discouraging drug use?

What surprised a lot of them was how unwilling Justice Scalia seemed to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause. He voted with the majority, which found that growing and using medicinal marijuana had a substantial indirect effect on the huge interstate traffic in marijuana.

And because of that, Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was a valid reason to apply the CSA , trumping the California law that allowed Raich to grow and use the marijuana as medicine. IA lot of conservatives don't like the fact that Commerce Clause has been used since the late 1930's to extend federal control so far, at the expense of the states' independence. And Justice Thomas made that argument in his dissent in Raich.

Scalia seemed to say (although I should re-read it, because it's not easy to understand) that it's up to the people--and not the Court--to determine how far Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce extends. If that's right--and I think it is, from what I've heard other commenters say--could he take that same broad view toward the health care mandate?

No one knows, but I think the government likes what he said in Raich--and hopes he'd feel forcing people to buy health insurance is a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause. But somehow I can't see him doing that.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care