ineedone

Fixed that one for ya! Okay, now to the serious stuff...



The establishment cause of the first amendment. Read that. I do not need to add onto the decades worth of case history that has firmly established that that clause creates a separation of church and state. This is not in any real contention. THE only real disagreement hangs on those literal words "separation of church and state" not existing in the constitution. However, if you really believe that the constitution can never be interpreted (as in, a living document so to say) to represent the times we live in, you are in some big trouble.



Well, you are wrongish. Though I agree that both civil rights and gender discrimination are constitutional issues, Justice Scalia does differ. He is considered the prominent "textualist" of the constitution. And his view is that gender was not in it so it is not a constitutional thing, so legislatures should change it if they want.

ThinkProgress » Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Prevent Gender Discrimination I know it is on think progress, ignore the commentary and focus on the things Scalia was quoted as saying. They are not as "radical" as thinkprogres tries to make it out to be.

Oh, and if your interested in his actual dissents where he supports this view of no constitutional issue with gender discrimination, have fun reading this whopper... his dissent is near the bottom. FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Uh, no.



The source was at the bottom of the post, but here it is again Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Is an Individual Health Insurance Mandate Constitutional?

And here is the actual authors bio The John Marshall Law School - Steven Schwinn

If you are not pleased, I have more.

Corbic

It's still the point though. Your guy gets in and still votes against what you want and he promised to do.

evomike

The tea party is a movement that was stolen from the people who started it and completely changed what it was about.

evomike

kingkilburn

If this is how you choose to debate then I am done with you.

Nice side stepping of the main point there and you are still wrong on all points.



Also the source goes with what was used or at least labeled so the reader knows were to look.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ineedone

Wait, what? What did I side step? How am I wrong? Are you done because you really are wrong? I do not understand. Are you mad that Christine O'Donnell did not win?

kingkilburn

You side stepped the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm done because I don't like where this is going to go. And no not because you think I'm wrong.


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?...LzM&feature=iv

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ineedone

... oh god...

Ever hear of US. v Darby? here ya go!

- The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers

It affirmed the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which power "can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power."

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/he.../15health.html

VA being a special case because of their state laws, the rest will follow MI. Eventually if the VA case gets to the SC, with the make up of the court, and assuming they rule on party lines (which is contrary to the notion of being a judge anyway... another topic for that though) you get a 4-4 with a possible question mark on Kennedy, who will most likely roll with the Breyer, Ginsburg and the likes.

However, if the justices decided on how they say their judicial philosophy is, you can not get around Darby, and you would probably get a lop sided decision that it is constitutional, however, I am sure Scalia and the likes will dissent in some part.

BUT, I do not think it will be granted cert. to be heard. AND all of this circles back to the original post as to whether the government can mandate healthcare or impose a tax. Does that wrap it up enough?

kingkilburn

US v Darby basically says that the Federal government can regulate health care but no where does it show that they can also mandate it. It has nothing to do with the 10th amendment disallowing them to start there own insurance company.


If the Federal government wanted social medicine(which I am not opposed to) it should have funded each state making a program to their(the federal government's) standard, the same as federally funded public school.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

cc4usmc

You two sound like you're using the Constitution like a check list.

"Nope, that's not on the Constitution, can't do that. Oh but this is, so go ahead."

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

kingkilburn

It is a checklist of sorts and while there are things in it that I disagree with until it is changed I will hold to it.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

cc4usmc

Agreed, but, do either of you actually know anything about the people who wrote the Constitution? Or the people who influenced them? Just out of curiosity.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

kingkilburn

Being a history and polisci major that would be a yes

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ESmorz

__________________

kingkilburn

There are so many of these stupid misspelled signs.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ineedone

I heard it was aliens.

...I am guessing constitutional law is not enough to actually know how the constitution works? I mean yeah, it is a tough class, but damn.

But what makes you the expert? Even among the most scholarly of scholars there is debate about the constitution. The truth is that the only people who really know what they meant when they wrote what they wrote are themselves. psst... that is why we have a legal system and lawyers. However, if you claim to know exactly what they meant, please enlighten us all!

kingkilburn - the whole point of a mandate is for regulation, that is the point of the "light reading" read the entire article if you really do not agree. The federal government did not start their own healthcare provider (I too wish we were single payer/public option with a little bit of our existing system - ps that too would be constitutional if done).

In reality the 10th amendment carries with it almost no weight. The only time there has been a successful 10th amendment case as the defense of marriage act, and I think 1 other.

The constitution is not a checklist, but a foundation. That is why I keep saying to you you can not approach as issue with the question "where in the constitution does it say you can do this" it is "where does it say you can not do this."


On another note, Michael Moore said something interesting last night, which I kind of agreed with. We are heading to a next presidential election where there is a good chance that we will have 4 legitimate candidates on the ticket. Left, Dem-Repub, Right. Or how I would phrase it, Coffee party, Dem-suck, Repub-suck, Tea party. Anyone want to start the Mario Party?

Corbic

Your point, is that actually a "teaparty/republican" or maybe just a "liberal/democratic" trying to make the "enemy" look like assholes/hillrats?

Even if it is a "Tea/Repub", that speaks more to the Lib/Dem/Union controlled school systems, no?

jspaeth

In my personal opinion, political science is the dumbest major ever...history is cool, but pol sci = dumb (nothing personal against you).


I am at Princeton currently, home of the "Woodrow Wilson School for Public Policy" (whatever that means....people teaching you HOW YOU SHOULD THINK?).......all of these people are into politics and political science and what have you.....I constantly have to listen to their stupid, ideological liberal thoughts.


The reason I say it is dumb is because how can someone TEACH YOU WHAT TO THINK?

Like 90% of the faculty in any political science department at any school are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

What this means is that people who go to school to study political science are basically being fed the party line and "bred" into "good little liberal thinkers".


It really bothers me that you can be educated on POLITICS......I feel that it is something that should come from within, from your own PERSONAL views and opinions.


It is really sad that 90% of political science and history professors are liberals, because anyone seeking to go into those fields are given ONE side of the story basically.

__________________

Daily driven

ineedone

There is also Mice with Human Brains!!!!!

I went to one of the most conservative schools (in economics at least - George Mason University) and I learned a lot. Disagreed with most of it, but in no way was I forced to believe anything. It is always better, in my opinion, learning about what you disagree with than just reaffirming what you already feel/know. By the way, where did all these conservative supreme court justices come from? Harvard, Yale, Princeton... same places of all those liberal justices...

Here is what happens when you do not know about the other side - How I Became A Keynesian | The New Republic

Posner is the conservative god in economics... and well... now... Keynesian. It is a bit sickening someone of that intellect would just neglect the other side for so long. That is scary.

slw240sx

The teaparty movement is all a marketing ploy. when your product isnt selling and you have surplus to move you rebrand it and make it all new and shiny and then it starts selling again. The republicans are great at branding and marketing to the masses, last election year though they had alot of division and a lack of solid contenders and the media marketing just couldn't cope with a young black candidate from the opposite party when things have been so bad with the old white rule.

politics are no longer about whats best for you an i. its whats best for the party contributors. the candidates are just putting on a marketing extravaganza to get there. i highly doubt any of them really even care whats going on in normal MERICA. they have never lived in everyday MERICA they are all from a wealthy class and have probably never had to deal with the hardships that real life present to working class and poverty class peoples. their struggles are how to hide income from the tax man so they can afford that resort home in aspen or their summer homes around the world. To them this is all a popularity race to a office that will pay them millions in salary whether or not their salary on paper is 40-60K a year. why else would meg Whitman of eBay fame pump a 140 million of personal money into a campaign for an office that will pay her maybe a 100K a year on paper? she just wants that political fame because thats what rich people and socialites want, the fame in their own class set.

__________________
http://www.forcedfabllc.com/

cc4usmc

Did I ask if you knew how the constitution works? No, I asked you if you knew anything about the people who wrote it. If you're trying to tell me that because you took a class on "Constitutional Law", you don't need to know anything about the aliens that wrote it, then just say it. Quit being a smart ass.

Did I claim to be an expert? I asked about your knowledge out of pure curiosity, and I even stated that. Sure, I might have read a book or two about the Founding Fathers, but nothing SOO substantial is a class on Constitutional Law. That's why you don't see me in here arguing, because I don't feel that my knowledge is substantial enough to provide valid argument.

I will leave you with this though..

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of the, they must become happy."

That quote is referring confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.

If you care, you'll find the person behind that quote. You two have fun in here.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

kingkilburn

They can mandate the regulation of an industry but they can not force me to buy a product.



I can now see why your understanding of the Constitution is so ass backwards compared to mine. You're coming from a law background based on what the Supreme Court has done. I'm coming from a political theory background and all I'm concerned with is what was intended by the writer/editors of the document.

I couldn't care less what the courts have done. There are quite a few cases where they have clearly gone against what was intended and pushed either their own agenda or the agendas of the other branches. The fact that the Patriot Act still stands as law has caused me to lose all faith in the Supreme Court.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

P.S. The fact that the Supreme Court doesn't strongly enforce the 10th Amendment doesn't take away from what it says and it very clearly states it's intent.

Most of my polisci classes have been more about political theory and the mechanics of government. I have had just as many conservative teachers as liberal.

Personally I'd rather have a teacher who is very obviously and openly biased. It makes it easier to see the flaws in their judgment.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Corbic

Additionally, they kept citing "30 million Americans are without health insurance".

First, so what. 100 years ago 100% of Americans where without Health Insurance. IIRC, 100% of North Korean's have Heath Insurance.

Second, over 10% of America is out of work... correlation? Course not.


Bring on Cap & Trade so Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wallstreet get rich while everyone else becomes even more poor.

Corbic

By the mere fact that you would Cite Michael Moore as a source for anything other than stupidity and willful ignorance means you are far left of center and all arguments from you should be viewed as such.

ineedone

Oh, come on, I was just joking around. And con law is no easy matter. But to back up my con law ill raise you Fed Tax, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, and Civil Procedure. I have had my fair share of working with the constitution in a academic sense at least.


The same guy that said this "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Play again?

ineedone

Well, if you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance. I know that is not the best example, but in a roundabout sense it is analogous. So yes, they can "force" you to buy something. Whether that be through fines or taxes...


Yes, that is very true. Law school, and well, seeing things in a legal sense is a completely different thing then what you would learn in a "theoretical" environment. But we do operate within the same 4 basic areas (Text,Intent,Realism,Modern Dynamics). Text/Intent being the more "conservative" way to view it, "Realism/Modern Dynamics" being the more liberal (or pragmatic) way to view it. I think now you can see how difficult the constitution really is! but this is a good thing!

Very true in a sense. However, you have to accept that your view is not necessarily the only "right" view. In theory we think of the justices as being the "least wrong" out of all of us, and therefore able to make the best decisions. I agree with you, Patriot Act is atrocious.

And it is not that I disagree with you, it is that the way you approach the issues is not how they are approach in the legal world. I may agree with your conclusions, just not the way you get there!

Just a thought, if the intent was so clear, then why has no justice seen it that way? I know, its a brainscrew to say the least... but hey, it is fun.

Knowing the other sides argument better than them is the best way to win a debate/argument!

ineedone

Can you read? or did you just see Michael Moore and your head just exploded? All I said was that he made an interesting point, that I do not disagree with. And how can anyone, in this political environment, disagree with that statement?

cc4usmc

I guess I shouldn't have added the quotations, that's probably why you thought I was suggesting that it was easy. So you probably know less than I do then?

Allegedly said.

Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson *

Was that comment just to show that you know who stated the comment I posted, or were you trying to discredit Thomas Jefferson because he may or many not have smoked weed?


* I'd be happy to provide more links that discredit statement if you'd like.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

jspaeth

The key issue here is that by driving on the road, a person could easily injure another person, so your insurance is primarily to cover OTHERS in case YOU hurt them.

However, that logic does not translate over to people.

By being alive, and possibly getting cancer or a broken leg, I am not a threat to anyone in any way, shape or form.

__________________

Daily driven

ineedone

I have read the federalist papers too... but that really does not make anyone an expert on the constitution or its founders. Just knowing the history of a founder still can not place you inside their head.


Apparently it is in the Jefferson Diaries/Memoirs, but honestly, I really really hope it is true because that just seems to be one of the coolest images in my head. Either way, I know my Jefferson man!

No, I would have to say he was one of my favs, but people do tend to ignore the writings/quotes of his that do not coincide with their own belief as to what he was or what he meant. He is a paradox, in my opinion at least.