Supreme Court Ruling

[Fast Gunn]

Monstrosity? What monstrosity?

Every major developed country already has some workable form of health care.

The first prototype will not be the finished product anymore than the first car ever built was perfect, but we need to start with something.

. . . It's time that the USA caught up with the rest of the world.

[Guest040616]

With the Supreme's (mostly) siding with the Obama Administration on the Arizona Immigration law, I am not sure how to predict the upcoming Health Care decision. I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts will write the decision, I'm just not certain which side of the fence he or Kennedy will be on!

[essence]

I always thought of the US as a democratic country, but now I realise it is not, but is ruled by:

- some documents written a long time ago called the constitution which appear to have the same status as the bible enjoys amongst certain fundamentalist christians

- lawyers and judges

Nobody responded to the thread I started, so I will ask again. Why is so much energy spent on debating whether something is constitutional or not, rather than whether it is of benefit or not? Why is the constitution regarded so reverentially and something inviolate?

If there was a discussion on the spirit of the constitution, rather than the legal letter of the constitution, that would make more sense. But lawyers aren't trained in common sense, they are trained in pedantry.

I am absolutely sure the great founding fathers are turning in their graves.

Of course, we all know that the people are too stupid to allow a truly democratic process, so we always have to have other establishments to correct the stupidity of the public.

I wrote that last paragraph WITHOUT any tongue in cheek. God help us if we were ruled only by the common people. Checks and balances are needed. Democracy plus institutions.

[Fast Gunn]

Actually, that is a very good question, essense and I have often pondered on that myself.

As I see it, The Constitution is meant to be a living document that has provisions to be amended and it has been many times so it's not set in stone and is not quite inviolate.

I suppose it is treated so reverentially because it forms the foundation of our government and it has served us extremely well for over 200 years.

. . . I think the idea here is that you do not tear up the foundation of a country on the whims and passions of the moment, but if reason can prevail then you can amend it to accommodate a new situation as the framers intended, but it is wisely not meant to be an easy process.

Originally Posted by essence

Nobody responded to the thread I started, so I will ask again. Why is so much energy spent on debating whether something is constitutional or not, rather than whether it is of benefit or not? Why is the constitution regarded so reverentially and something inviolate?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Actually, that is a very good question, essense and I have often pondered on that myself.

As I see it, The Constitution is meant to be a living document that has provisions to be amended and it has been many times so it's not set in stone and is not quite inviolate.

I suppose it is treated so reverentially because it forms the foundation of our government and it has served us extremely well for over 200 years.

. . . I think the idea here is that you do not tear up the foundation of a country on the whims and passions of the moment, but if reason can prevail then you can amend it to accommodate a new situation as the framers intended, but it is wisely not meant to be an easy process.

Conservatives have no problem with amending the Constitution. That's what the founders intended. The problem with the "living document" theory is judicial activism, or writing law from the bench. That's what conservatives have a problem with.

Half of the federal government exists today, because SCOTUS has played games with the Constitution, and allowed agencies to be created that are clearly not constitutional. This is usually done by an absurdly broad interpetation of the commerce clause. We'll find out Thursday if SCOTUS is going to rule that the commerce clause gives the federal government the authority to make everyone buy health insurance. If they make that ruling, there will be essentially no limit to what the feds can make us do.

[Doove]

I suspect the Supreme Court will tell us that it's their belief that states can force us to eat broccoli, but the federal government can't.

Now, with that...

Originally Posted by essence

Nobody responded to the thread I started, so I will ask again. Why is so much energy spent on debating whether something is constitutional or not, rather than whether it is of benefit or not? Why is the constitution regarded so reverentially and something inviolate?

That's what i'd like to know, frankly.

Especially when it's become clear that whether or not something is constitutional depends on which political party the judge is a member of. I doubt that's what the framers had in mind.

Several times i've challenged COG to argue that something he was against based on his belief that it was unconstitutional was of no benefit, or a negative benefit. Not once has he bothered to even try. My assumption is that he feels he shouldn't need to, and should just be allowed to rely on the lazy man's argument that it's unconstitutional. Which, to me, is about as persuasive as someone saying that gay marriage should be outlawed simply because "the bible says so".

The constitution is as open to interpretation as the bible. I think that's pretty clear.

Personally, I think the rules regarding the Supreme Court should be changed. Rather than a simple majority, i think the court should be required to come up with a super-majority (7-2 or even 8-1) in order to over turn a legislated law. Simply put, if a law is clearly unconstitutional, then the court should be able to come up with a super-majority opinion on that. If not, then it's open to debate and the court should defer to the voters who elect and un-elect the legislators who imposed that law. Or who can vote to over-turn it if that's what they want.

[Fast Gunn]

The Supreme Court has simply been moving much too far right and authoritarian and running rough shod over this country with their heavy handed decisions.

I did not think they had any business deciding the Bush Vs Gore election, but they bulldozed their way in there anyway and then made a very bad ruling. Bush dug this country into the economic hole we're in and The Supreme Court opened the White House to him.

We will see how wisely they decide on Thursday, but if they do strike down Health Care than it will be a serious blow to President Obama's chances of re-election because it will weaken him politically.

Mitt Romney is a determine adversary and the Republicans are raising more money than the Democrats which is bad enough.

Personally, I think strongly that this country should provide affordable health care to its citizens the way many other nations have managed to do. I think we are way behind the times, but many entrenched interests do not want to change because they benefit from overcharging people for health care.

. . . Maybe its not a perfect bill, but neither was the first car that came off the line, but we need to start somewhere to make progress.

[Laz]

The reason we believe in following the constitution is because it limits the size of the federal government and we agree with the guys that wrote the constitution that that is a good thing. Being the smart guys they were they also created a process to modify the constitution. It is difficult for a reason. A change has to be thoroughly vetted before it can pass the amendment process. Most bad ideas will never get passed as a result.

Most of the problems we are facing now were created because we did not follow that process and now we are dealing with the mess created by politicians that did not analyze the impact of there ideas on a long term basis. Politicians only look at the next election.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Doove

Several times i've challenged COG to argue that something he was against based on his belief that it was unconstitutional was of no benefit, or a negative benefit. Not once has he bothered to even try. My assumption is that he feels he shouldn't need to, and should just be allowed to rely on the lazy man's argument that it's unconstitutional. Which, to me, is about as persuasive as someone saying that gay marriage should be outlawed simply because "the bible says so".

You never argue. You just simply post crap. If you want to ask a serious constitutional question, I'll answer it. But get over yourself. You're a flamethrower.

The Constitution is the Law of the Land because the states voted it to be that when they ratified it. It is open to limited interpretation, but since we have many writings of the Founders, we can determine what they meant when they wrote a particular provision. We rarely have to guess. Instead, we choose to guess in order to promote our particular view.

Essence is not worth responding to. Now he knows more about our Founders than we do. Jesus, what a pompous ass.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You never argue. You just simply post crap. If you want to ask a serious constitutional question, I'll answer it. But get over yourself. You're a flamethrower.

Project much?

[CuteOldGuy]

Ask a question. This is a freebie. You want an answer to something? Ask it.

[Fast Gunn]

Okay, then if all the obligatory insults have been dispensed with, maybe we get this thread back on track.

Who asked the Supreme Court to get involved in Health Care anyway?

They have great health care themselves, but the decrepit old codgers have to decide themselves if the rest of the citizens deserve such quality care?

. . . I don't particularly like how the law fucking demands I wear my seat belt when I drive, why didn't they rule on that issue?

[CuteOldGuy]

I think the Supreme Court was asked about health care because the Constitution does not state that the Federal government can impose or regulate health care. The Act is unconstitutional. Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government can force anyone to buy something they don't want.

Broccoli, for instance.

The state requires you to wear a seat belt when you drive, not the feds. Also, the state cannot make you fasten your seat belt if you choose to not get in a car. If you make the voluntary act of getting in a car, you must wear a seat belt.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Okay, then if all the obligatory insults have been dispensed with, maybe we get this thread back on track.

Who asked the Supreme Court to get involved in Health Care anyway?

They have great health care themselves, but the decrepit old codgers have to decide themselves if the rest of the citizens deserve such quality care?

. . . I don't particularly like how the law fucking demands I wear my seat belt when I drive, why didn't they rule on that issue?

The Supreme Court got "involved" because twenty six states filed a lawsuit to overturn Obamacare due to it being unconstitutional.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Also, the state cannot make you fasten your seat belt if you choose to not get in a car. If you make the voluntary act of getting in a car, you must wear a seat belt.

Kind of like the voluntary act of getting a job means you have to pay taxes.