How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
"That is not adjudication, it is abdication. It casts aside one of our most important institutional safeguards against tyranny — meaningful judicial review — and replaces it with a one-way ratchet towards ever-expanding government power: precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent. Refusing to go down that road is not activism, it’s engagement.
"Both Judge Wilkinson and President Obama overlook a simple insight at the very core of the Constitution: Power is dangerous, and it must be checked. The Framers of the Constitution understood that, and we must as well if America is to remain a free country in anything but name."
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 9,818 Location: Valley Center/Escondido
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #2 on Apr 9, 2012, 5:59pm »
We are treading on thin ice in this current environment. I saw again this morning when a discussion was had on CSPAN about the challenge to the Judiciary and how the current administration is trying to overthrow or rewrite decades old laws through writing regulations without the Congress being involved. It will take Judicial action after folks file suits against the Administration to reign in this abuse. This kind of radical action can be challenged and overcome, but only if the third branch stands it's ground and Congress gets off the dime and fulfills its function in writing law.
Dionne must have got up on the wrong side the bed that morning.
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #3 on Apr 10, 2012, 2:15am »
Universal health care is in the best interests of all Americans. Like all health insurance systems, it seeks to spead the cost across the greatest array of ages and health status. Like all health care systems, it must include the whole array less it fail from the skewed actuarials.
There is no reson for the SC to review the "must opt in" requirement, anymore than they should review the "must" contribute requirement for SS. Now that they have agreed to hear it, they must do the right thing and view the system as no different that SS. I have no faith that this conservative majority will do the right thing and uphold the law, anymore than I believed that the same conservative majority would not decide (read: steal) and election in 2000, based solely on partisan politics. The majority opinion will no doubt confirm my cynical view of SC politics, and this speaks to the most significant reason that Barack Obama needs to be reelected - to insure that in the future the SC has a majority of fair thinking jurists - that is to say, jurists who have the best interests of all Americans in mind.
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #4 on Apr 10, 2012, 11:03am »
Quote:
Universal health care is in the best interests of all Americans. Like all health insurance systems, it seeks to spread the cost across the greatest array of ages and health status. Like all health care systems, it must include the whole array less it fail from the skewed actuarials.
Agree 100%
Quote:
There is no reason for the SC to review the "must opt in" requirement, anymore than they should review the "must" contribute requirement for SS. Now that they have agreed to hear it, they must do the right thing and view the system as no different that SS. I have no faith that this conservative majority will do the right thing and uphold the law, anymore than I believed that the same conservative majority would not decide (read: steal) and election in 2000, based solely on partisan politics. The majority opinion will no doubt confirm my cynical view of SC politics, and this speaks to the most significant reason that Barack Obama needs to be reelected - to insure that in the future the SC has a majority of fair thinking jurists - that is to say, jurists who have the best interests of all Americans in mind.
After reading about the testimony before the court and some legal analysis, I have my doubts as to whether the court will uphold the mandate. I think that if Congress would have passed a universal healthcare system supported by additional taxes, like Medicare and Social Security, then the court would rule in favor since the court has already done so back in the 30's.
When / If the court overturns the mandate then Congress will have no other choice but to implement the true Universal Healthcare System, Medicare for all, that they should have done in the first place.
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #5 on Apr 10, 2012, 12:14pm »
And where does this stop. First healthcare, then we have to have this or that. I see a pandora's box here. But I still go back to the original premise that do we really want government to be in the medical business. They can't get anything else rto run in the black. I think the SC will stike it and back to the drawing board.
Universal health care is in the best interests of all Americans. Like all health insurance systems, it seeks to spead the cost across the greatest array of ages and health status. Like all health care systems, it must include the whole array less it fail from the skewed actuarials.
There is no reson for the SC to review the "must opt in" requirement, anymore than they should review the "must" contribute requirement for SS. Now that they have agreed to hear it, they must do the right thing and view the system as no different that SS. I have no faith that this conservative majority will do the right thing and uphold the law, anymore than I believed that the same conservative majority would not decide (read: steal) and election in 2000, based solely on partisan politics. The majority opinion will no doubt confirm my cynical view of SC politics, and this speaks to the most significant reason that Barack Obama needs to be reelected - to insure that in the future the SC has a majority of fair thinking jurists - that is to say, jurists who have the best interests of all Americans in mind.
The job of the supreme court is not to "have the best interests of all Americans in mind". It is a check ( surely one as "informed"as you have heard of the system of checks and balances) against the legislative,executive and the several states from passing laws and undertaking actions that are unconstitutional.
There is no "best interests of all Americans". That is the thinking of totalitarian thugs.
Universal health care is in the best interests of all Americans. Like all health insurance systems, it seeks to spead the cost across the greatest array of ages and health status. Like all health care systems, it must include the whole array less it fail from the skewed actuarials.
There is no reson for the SC to review the "must opt in" requirement, anymore than they should review the "must" contribute requirement for SS. Now that they have agreed to hear it, they must do the right thing and view the system as no different that SS. I have no faith that this conservative majority will do the right thing and uphold the law, anymore than I believed that the same conservative majority would not decide (read: steal) and election in 2000, based solely on partisan politics. The majority opinion will no doubt confirm my cynical view of SC politics, and this speaks to the most significant reason that Barack Obama needs to be reelected - to insure that in the future the SC has a majority of fair thinking jurists - that is to say, jurists who have the best interests of all Americans in mind.
The job of the supreme court is not to "have the best interests of all Americans in mind". It is a check ( surely one as "informed"as you have heard of the system of checks and balances) against the legislative,executive and the several states from passing laws and undertaking actions that are unconstitutional.
There is no "best interests of all Americans". That is the thinking of totalitarian thugs.
When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
inevitec Guest
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #8 on Apr 10, 2012, 2:48pm »
And where does this stop. First healthcare, then we have to have this or that. I see a pandora's box here. But I still go back to the original premise that do we really want government to be in the medical business. They can't get anything else rto run in the black. I think the SC will stike it and back to the drawing board.
Government in the medical business? I would say that there is plenty of evidence indicating government handles health care very well. (see Medicare. See DOD) Look at Europe. 34th in outcome with 1st in cost is no ringing endorsement of private health care, Mr. Tuff
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #9 on Apr 10, 2012, 3:10pm »
I'm a Democrat and generally like Obama. I certainly will vote for him in November rather than for Romney. However, I thought his comments about the Supreme Court were out of line. They smacked of a much milder version of FDR's court packing attempt, which was fully beyond the pale. (FDR was nevertheless a great president)
The job of the supreme court is not to "have the best interests of all Americans in mind". It is a check ( surely one as "informed"as you have heard of the system of checks and balances) against the legislative,executive and the several states from passing laws and undertaking actions that are unconstitutional.
There is no "best interests of all Americans". That is the thinking of totalitarian thugs.
When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people.
FYI....
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people.
FYI....
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
I believe we were talking about the interests of the American people. Do you not think that those are the interests of the American people?
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people.
FYI....
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
It seems you wanted to me think it was. You need to stop misquoting.
It is funny that you used that case. In Jacobson the Court found that it was just legal to pass a law requiring everyone get a smallpox vaccination or pay a fine of $5.00. That was a lot of money a hundred years ago. Kind of like requiring everyone to have health insurance.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
It seems you wanted to me think it was. You need to stop misquoting.
It is funny that you used that case. In Jacobson the Court found that it was just legal to pass a law requiring everyone get a smallpox vaccination or pay a fine of $5.00. That was a lot of money a hundred years ago. Kind of like requiring everyone to have health insurance.
Very first paragraph of the syllabus.
The case was about police powers of states. Not about federal authority under the preamble to the Constitution.
Which is the issue at hand.
Just so you don't get confused...
...you said:
"When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people."
SCOTUS is considering a FEDERAL "law".
And, as I pointed out:
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
It seems you wanted to me think it was. You need to stop misquoting.
It is funny that you used that case. In Jacobson the Court found that it was just legal to pass a law requiring everyone get a smallpox vaccination or pay a fine of $5.00. That was a lot of money a hundred years ago. Kind of like requiring everyone to have health insurance.
Very first paragraph of the syllabus.
The case was about police powers of states. Not about federal authority under the preamble to the Constitution.
Which is the issue at hand.
Just so you don't get confused...
...you said:
"When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people."
SCOTUS is considering a FEDERAL "law".
And, as I pointed out:
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
The case was about police powers of states. Not about federal authority under the preamble to the Constitution.
Which is the issue at hand.
Just so you don't get confused...
...you said:
"When was the last time you read the preamble to the Constitution? Those are the best interests of the American people."
SCOTUS is considering a FEDERAL "law".
And, as I pointed out:
"The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
Game. Set. Match.
To me.
To you is the weenie:
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.
POP goes the weasel...
heh
So you finally found the case, rather than the "Cliff's Notes" version. Congratulations. Slow hand clap.
Now what was the case about? Want to give us a little review? Something about citizens being required to have smallpox vacinations? Or be fined five dollars? At that time that would be about a week's wages for many people. A substantial fine. Did not the Court say that was constitutional? Hmm, could that be carried over to any current case before the court, I wonder.
Here is what is funny to me. My post about the Preamble to the Constitution is in reply to afan. He said, "There is no 'best interests of all Americans.' That is the thinking of totalitarian thugs." I disagreed and pointed him to the Preamble to the Constitution. Those are the "best interests of all Americans." I said nothing about it being controlling law. That was your tangent. It had nothing to do with my post. You missed the issue.
So you plagiarized from a secondary source and passed it off as if from a primary source. Two big no no's. You missed the issue to be researched. You just flunked legal research.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
inevitec Guest
Re: Conservatives like to dish it out... « Reply #18 on Apr 10, 2012, 8:13pm »
"Those are the best interests of the American people."
Since we are a republic, the best interest of the American people is up to the people. Is it not?
The people can affect the Supreme Court, they can change the constitution and, forgive me, the people can do whatever the "F" they want if there are sufficient numbers agreeing.
(Bush's -500,000 win notwithstanding)
When Americans really understand the Health Care changes they will approve. That is why the Republicans want to kill it before it takes effect.
That is also why Republicans try so hard to reduce the numbers who vote. The SOBs in power who are Republican get it. They also get that given a situation by situation choice, they will lose. And, the demographics are getting worse for them with each passing year. That is also why Republicans try so hard to reduce the numbers who vote.
That is also why Republicans try so hard to reduce the numbers who vote.
Well I'm sure as hell no republican and I hardly think it's too much to ask to show ID when you vote.
No, we certainly don't want to approve voter fraud. At the same time, we don't want to exclude those leagally eligible their right to vote. We certainly don't want another Katherine Harris in charge, do we?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg "[avatar]")