United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson has struck down the entirety of the National Health Care law (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as unconstitutional. What is most interesting is his decision that the entire act had to be struck down because of the individual mandate provision’s unconstitutionality. Vinson grants declaratory relief but declines to grant injunctive relief.
Joined by governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the Florida challenge was broader than the recent Virginia challenge — that led to the striking down of the individual mandate provision. I have previously written about my own concerns over the constitutionality of that provision.
The decision of Judge Vinson will only increase the already high likelihood that the Supreme Court will review the controversy. The two major decisions in Virginia and Florida will be reviewed by two different courts of appeal. Two other rulings (supporting the law) are also moving toward the Supreme Court.
The rule also represents a rejection of the Administration’s effort to avoid review by challenging the standing of the state attorneys general. Ironically, I reviewed the Bond v. U.S. (09-1227) case in my Supreme Court class today. That case involves a woman who challenged her conviction on federalism grounds. The Third Circuit ruled that only states and state officials could challenge federal laws on federalism grounds. The Obama Administration (correctly in my view) switched sides before the Court and ended up arguing for the Bond that she did have standing. This could prove an important term on standing doctrine. The conservatives justices have been generally hostile to standing and have gradually carved out individuals and groups who can seek review of some laws.
Judge Vinson ruled that he could not treat the individual mandate provision as severable and thus (after agreeing with Judge Hudson in Virginia that the provision is unconstitutional) he struck down the entire act. He stated: Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.”
The court notes that Congress elected not to include a severability clause despite the fact that one was in an earlier version of the law — setting itself up for such a total rejection of the law.
The decision is a strong expression of federalism, starting with Madison’s famous statement from the Federalist Papers 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place oblige it to control itself.
The problem is the lack of a limiting principle in the arguments in favor of the law. Vinson notes:
The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course
of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a
morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service
and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on
interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.
He notes the political pressure in the case: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.”
In rejecting an injunction, the court indicates that declaratory and injunctive relief should be essentially fungible:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I doubt the Administration will view it that way. They have two decision upholding the law and two rejecting the law on the district level. They are not likely to view themselves constructively enjoined.
Here is the entire decision by Judge Vinson: Vinson
Jonathan Turley
If the feds can do this (force us to have health care) it can force us to do just about anything.
No one in their right mind believes this arbitrary (and totalitarian) power is limited government. And that is why anyone who voted for the act was not in their right mind (and probably never is).
This is not an enumerated power. Congress does not have this power. And the president goes down in history as a Constitutional scholar who doesn’t know what the Constitution means,and a national embarrassment.
If this gets struck down, it seems like it will take at least 2 years, if not 4 or 6, before we could even hope to have healthcare revisited.
James:
You have to rewrite the Constitution to have your visitation.
Tootie,
That’s simply untrue. The federal government could constitutionally use its spending power to persuade the states to adopt healthcare reform, even if this is struck down.
Vince Tracey appears to have been a prophet :
“Vince Treacy
1, March 31, 2010 at 7:54 am
JT says “these are matters that should not be decided by mere fiat of Congress but rather by the courts.”
I disagree. These matters should be resolved by the democratically elected representatives of the people, not by unelected judges imposing their own particular economic views by judicial fiat.
If the people disagree, they will elect new representatives who will vote to reform, amend or repeal the law. If the people agree, the law will stand.
Some folks favor the rule of unelected judges in matters of economic policy. In the past, those judges invalidated child labor laws.”
The glee must be overflowing especially in the House.
Tootie,
This is only one Federal District Court and as Prof. Turley has stated, this will end up in front of the Supremes and even Scalia has tipped his hand on this issue that it is consitutional. The only reason these cases are being brought is for political gain by the state AG’s and the Republican party and to stir their base up.
Interesting and true comment from a Huffpo commentator:
“Dave Parks (3:37 PM)
Better be careful what you wish for, GOP. If by some miracle you have this law declared unconstitutional, there will be complete chaos within the American health system. Then, you’d better think fast about what YOU are going to do about the problems facing health care. And doing nothing will not be an option that you can politically afford”
James:
It can only use its spending power on things it has authority to use it for.
It doesn’t have authority to force the states to have health care.
rafflaw:
I don’t care why people are suing the feds.
enio:
Oh yes, we should violate the Constitution because Democrats previously trampled it now we might have undo it. They could have stopped it but insisted on this madness.
Tootie,
I know you don’t care, but that doesn’t make it any less important for the rest of the world that cares about the motives.
eniobob,
I am not sure the Republicans care about the chaos, it will just allow their bosses, the insurance industry to charge even more money for less service. I think the chaos could be useful because people who have prexisting conditions comprise almost half of the US population and they should be rightfully upset if the health care is thrown out by the Supremes.
Tootie,
So we should dismantle the Air Force, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the BATFE, and the Marine Corps too? None of these entities are enumerated.
A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983…..
No wonder Obama has been evoking Ronald Regan so much and the media trying to paint him as Reaganesque as of late. Tried to send the judge a signal. All the while Egypt burns.
And the winner is…..
Health insurance companies. Bill more, pay less to the doctors.
Blake:
If the government would stop regulating insurance companies across state lines companies could compete better.
Tootie,
You do know that is a false example, don’t you? Don’t you realize that insurance companies have many subsidiaries or related companies that are set up to do business in one or several states to get around any state border issues?
Tootie,
Yes, let’s just take our hands off the wheel and the magical market will steer us to low rates for all!
Your faith in unaccountable private entities is… impressive?
squirrel:
The necessary and proper clause as it refers to the power to declare war allows for the Air force. The Air Force started in the Army (something allow in Article One, Section Eight).
The Marines Corp? Does “Marine” give you a clue? Hint, hint “marina”, “water”???? Like in Navy? LOL And does the shores of Tripoli ring a bell? Does the Continental Navy-Marine Corps sound familiar?
I don’t believe the CIA and FBI should be executive branch departments. Where is the power listed? Only congress would have this authority.
BATF? Not even congress has the authority to create a BATF.
@Tootie: That’s the problem, they don’t compete at all, they collude to create a monopoly that overcharges and then screws any policy holder requiring expensive care. They routinely deny coverage they are contractually obligated to provide, and only provide it when sued hard — By which time the policy holder is often dead, which works to their advantage because death terminates the expense of the care.
If they are allowed to cross state lines, it is not the insurance companies that will compete: It is the states; the state with the most lax and ill-enforced corporate regulation and lowest fees and franchise taxes (what corporations pay to states) is where they will be located, all the better to screw you with.
Obamacare screwed up the insurance industry. There are plenty of examples where the insurance company just stops writing different coverages. This thing stinks to high heaven and the bill needs to be ripped to shreds and start over. This time reading it before passing it instead of passing a hat and saying throw in what you want, then Pelosi telling us we have to pass it to know whats in it. Most recognize exactly whats in it now and it’s only good as a one ply sheet of toilet paper.
Politico writes:
Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
According to a survey of state insurance departments by Republican Senate committee staff and obtained by POLITICO, states that have seen carriers exit the market include those that have been ardent supporters of the health reform law, like California and Oregon. Twenty states now have no insurers offering child-only policies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48299.html#ixzz1CIsNhkIe
All the while Egypt continues to burn
Mike:
Every thing government does gets more and more expensive and provides worse and worse services. Eduction. The Post Office. Home Loans, College Tuition.
Your having one xray, a bottle of aspirin, a polio shot, and a dose of antibiotics (all of which about 99 percent of Americans can afford out of pocket) is more miraculous medical products and services than all the founding general of Americans ever had (because these things were not available).
Americans at the founding never had any of the options easily available to the poorest Americans today. And the poor have even more miraculous things they can afford. Best estimates of life expectancy in the colonial era is 45 years. Today? For the poor its about 75 years.
LOL! I don’t believe anything you cry babies say.
Tony:
So you want a government monopoly? Please, don’t complain about monopolies at the same time you are advocating one.
There is not competitive car insurance? Or home owners insurance? Or life insurance?
I don’t believe you.
Government involvement in providing insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) is what strips the system of competitiveness. Doctors and hospitals know the government will pay out. There is no motivation to streamline, be efficient, or reduce costs.
Well that’s good that you don’t believe in facts like what the Constitution actually says according to both people with legal experience and jurisprudence or how insurance operates to game the system of patchwork state-by-state regulation, Tootles.
It frees up storage space for other things in your brain. Other “more important” things. Like that whitey is experiencing genocide or that God hates homos. It’s such a small box, it’s good that you keep emptying out parts of it so you have room for your ridiculous beliefs.
Whoever drafted that law without a severability clause should at the very least, lose their job.
J Vinson: “The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.”
Damn straight!
The Fed was never empowered, even by the commerce/taffy clause, to compel citizens of the several states to make particular purchases; period.
Buddha,
I do hope you’re not arguing that the Fed was empowered to use the commerce clause in the way it did in this case.
In re the issue of standing…
Didn’t SCOTUS toss out the rules of justiciability when it ignored all four them by deciding Bush v. Gore?
http://members.tripod.com/the_solipsist/id65.htm
“The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. This is one of a number of cases pending before courts around the country, including several that the government has won in the district courts that are now before the courts of appeals. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”
“We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any – including seeking a stay – are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need.”
Da Link
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1182
During the congressional debate over the health-care legislation, CNSNews.com repeatedly asked members of Congress to state the specific constitutional provision that authorized Congress to force individuals to buy health insurance. Multiple Democratic leaders–including Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.)–failed to directly answer the question.
By contrast, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sharply questioned the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate and told CNSNews.com: “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy’s told CNSNews.com that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to force people to buy health insurance.
“Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?” CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover asked Leahy.
”We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” countered Leahy.
“I’m asking,” said Cover.
“Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that,” said Leahy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-congressional-democrats-couldn
Bdaman,
There’s also no specifically enumerated power for congress to promulgate a general penal/criminal law. Thus the reason early drug laws were passed in the form of tax acts.
Just imagine how this debate would change if people took the time to learn the basics of how the constitution works.
And don’t forget the waivers, over 700 to date. Here’s a list of at least 28.
The following is a list of UFCW Local health care plans receiving health care waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services:
1. Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers’ Health and Welfare Plan covers 6,885 enrollees.
2. UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund covers 107 enrollees.
3. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund covers 77 enrollees.
4. UFCW Local One Health Care Fund covers 4,335 enrollees.
5. Local 888 UFCW covers 4,004 enrollees.
6. UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund covers 3,028 enrollees.
7. Local 377 UFCW covers 1,142 enrollees.
8. UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund covers 3,800 enrollees.
9. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust covers 68 enrollees
10. UFCW Local 227 covers 1,125 enrollees.
11. UFCW Maximus Local 455 covers 59 enrollees.
12. UFCW Local 1262 covers 5,390 enrollees.
13. United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health
and Welfare Plan covers 98 enrollees
14. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund covers 821 enrollees.
15. United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona covers 516 enrollees.
16. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan covers 7,389 enrollees.
17. Delmarva United Food and Commercial Workers covers 2,405 enrollees.
18. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund covers 13,663 enrollees.
19. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire covers 148 enrollees.
20. The waiver for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund covers just four enrollees.
21. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a covers 8,228 enrollees.
22. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911 covers 582 enrollees.
23. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 covers 3,855 enrollees.
24. Wisconsin United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Health Plan covers 775 enrollees.
25. United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ) covers 4,100 enrollees.
26. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459 covers 1,400 enrollees.
27. United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund covers 6,780 enrollees.
28. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995 covers 2,779 enrollees.
Bob I let the lawyers do the lawyering but from my perspective the people running this country are hell bent on destroying it.
A week after Republicans announced plans to investigate waivers granted to organizations for healthcare reform provisions, President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than 500 groups.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is granting temporary waivers to organizations that would not be able to meet the reform law’s new requirement for annual coverage limits.
As of last week, HHS had granted waivers to 222 organizations covering 1.5 million individuals. Though the number of groups receiving waivers has now more than tripled, the number of individuals covered by the waivers increased just 600,000 to 2.1 million.
The law gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the flexibility to grant waivers to avoid disruption in the insurance market, but Republicans say the waivers are either gifts to Democratic allies or proof that the reform law isn’t working. However, a large number of businesses, in addition to unions, have received waivers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/140533-hhs-grants-new-reform-waivers-amid-heightened-scrutiny
Obama said that new laws would be online for five days before he would sign it but that was before Biden told him the was a Big Fucking Deal.
Bdaman,
Why didn’t you list 28 of the corporations that got waivers like you did for the Unions?
Bdaman:
Your point about waivers is critical. In order to justify Social Security everyone had to participate in the program in order for any “general welfare” aspect or equal protection to apply.
Waivers with Obamcare deny general welfare or equal protection. Some people are more special and able to shoo off the government while I am not.
rafflaw:
“and even Scalia has tipped his hand on this issue that it is consitutional”
When this does get before SCOTUS, and Scalia means what he said, I may just find a wee bit of respect for him.
On another note, I’m still waiting to see what the GOP wants to replace this bill with.
@Tootie: Yes, I advocate a national health care system. Increasing profit is not the only possible motivation for streamlining or efficiency. My wife works at a non-profit hospital; one I briefly worked at as a consultant, and they are efficient, and save money, and nobody there is earning a fortune. A governmental motivation can be to make as big a difference as possible with the budget they have. You are mistaken if you believe that money is the only thing that motivates people, or healthcare workers.
In fact, in the vast majority of companies the vast majority of employees are not motivated by profits at all, their hourly wage or yearly salary does not change at all if they are more efficient or less so. People are motivated by trying to please their bosses, from the line managers on up. My niece is an executive secretary; her salary doesn’t change by a dime if her employer is profitable or loses money, and neither does her manager’s salary or compensation: Nobody gets bonuses there.
So if the government runs the organization, it should be Congress or the President making demands to get more efficient and provide more services for citizens with less money. That is their job in “congressional oversight” and in being the “chief executive.”
So yes, let the government have the monopoly, they don’t need to make a profit, and healthcare would cost us about 30% less, because that is what we learned, in 2009, the insurance companies are siphoning off the top. Or we’d get about 50% more benefits than we are getting now.
Tootie
1, January 31, 2011 at 3:28 pm
If the feds can do this (force us to have health care) it can force us to do just about anything
The reality is that Tootie wants to continue the socialism of having everyone else paying for the healthcare for the 40 million uninsured through billions in extra taxes each year instead of being personally responsible by carrying one’s own.
No one in their right mind would want this law repealed. And no one in their right mind does.
Rafflaw because Obama did exactly what he said he would not and thats favors special interest groups. Obama is a Union payback man, a big government type of guy. Ask yourself who has benefited the most from the waivers and there you shall find the answers you seek.
Bob,
In re proper application of Commerce Clause.
No. In this instance, it is a clear overreach to mandate purchasing a private for-profit product. I’ve called this what it is all along: the health insurance company bailout. It’s not “reform”. It’s certainly not universal single-payer coverage – which makes the most sense economically and structurally and could be accomplished legally. But it is propping up the same robber barons, er, insurance company executives, who are currently denying coverage for their personal profits. “Health care reform” is simply more corporatist protectionism by people bought out of their loyalty to the American people by industry driven graft. It does little if anything about the problem of the uninsured other than attempt to penalize them for not being good lil’ blind consumers and doing what they are told. Obama is as big a fascist asshole as Bush. He just works for the insurance lobby instead of the family oil business. His “health care reform” is simply icing on the cake. Have you tried the cake? Marie says it’s DEEE-lish!
Hey, Obama, here’s why appointing judges matters
A Reagan appointee rules the entire healthcare reform act unconstitutional — and praises the Boston Tea Party
Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Of the four judges who have decided so far on the constitutionality of healthcare reform, Vinson is the second to deem the mandate out of bounds. But in distinction to his Virginia counterpart, Henry Hudson, Vinson also took the “radical” step of ruling that since the ACA included no “severability” clause that would leave the rest of the act intact, even if one part was struck down, the entire law was unconstitutional.
That sound you hear is the flutter of million ecstatic tweets of joy from conservatives, even if, in the short term, nothing substantive changes today. The legal status of the Affordable Care Act won’t be decided until the Supreme Court makes its own determination, a point that is at least a year or two away.
Legal analysis aside, the most obvious thing about the four rulings that have been made so far is that two Clinton appointees have found the law constitutional, while Henry Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, and Vinson, a Reagan appointee, have not. Correlation is not causation, but Slate’s Dave Weigel spotted a paragraph in Judge Vinson’s opinion that seems more than a little resonant of current political fashions.
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
Continue reading
A Tea Party shout-out in a legal opinion on healthcare reform? Seems just a little bit obvious. Not to mention activist. And it further emphasizes the profound importance of the fight to determine who gets appointed to the federal judiciary, a fight Republicans have been winning for decades.
And a fight that Obama has been losing to a spectacular, unprecedented degree. The Prospect’s Jamelle Bouie and the New Republic’s Jonathan Bernstein make a compelling case: Yes, Obama has been fighting the most obstructionist opposition party in modern history, but at the same time, he has let down his side by not being aggressive enough in both nominating judges and pushing for their appointment. Even if healthcare reform makes it past the current Supreme Court unscathed, the path for any future socially beneficial legislation will just get harder and harder, as the scales of justice get increasingly stacked.
UPDATE: Just got off a conference call with “senior administration officials” who made the case that, in their opinion, Judge Vinson’s ruling was an “outlier.” But there was some dancing around the question of whether the individual states party to the lawsuit could choose to interpret the decision as permitting them to drag their feet on implementation of the law. Two reporters on the call said that lawyers for the plaintiffs had made that claim. We’ll watch that closely.
http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2011/01/31/healthcare_reform_and_the_federal_judiciary
A judge who understands the Constitution, wonder of wonders. You go Judge Vinson.
What does a not for profit hospital mean?
What it means is close to the end of the year, if they show any monetary gain that money must be spent as to not be seen as making a profit. So lets say a non profit hospital is 3 million in the black at some point in the year. That money is then spent say on new equipment, raises, new wing ect ect.
Just because they are not for profit doesn’t mean they don’t make one.
bdaman,
First, learn to differentiate between “insurance companies” and “hospitals”. The problem in this country isn’t hospitals per se but rather the insurance companies.
Second, “not-for-profit” means exactly what you think it means: surplus funds at year end are reinvested into infrastructure and – in this case, patient services – instead of distributed to owners or shareholders. Owners and shareholders, who by the way, do not give a flying rat’s ass about people dying if they can profit from it.
Buddha:
“Owners and shareholders, who by the way, do not give a flying rat’s ass about people dying if they can profit from it.”
how do you know that? Yesh, talk about me making unsubstantiated statements.
But it seems to me that an investor would want to make money. So they would want a company that took care of their patients/clients. Because if they don’t and cause people to die needlessly they would be sued and that would be bad for business. Especially in light of the multi-million dollar judgements.
So I disagree with your assertion.
Self interest protects more than just self. As I said on the Rush thread my friend keeps a tight ship because he wants to keep selling his hot dogs. If he makes someone sick, he could go out of business and then where would he be? Government doesn’t do shit to protect his customers, he does because he knows it is in his self interest to do so. And so his self interest protects his customers.
Now there are plenty of stupid people who think they are putting something over on their customers but they don’t last long and the health department only gives them a patina of respectability.
Judge uses Obama’s words against him
udge Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution — including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance, and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted Mr. Obama‘s opposition to an individual mandate could come back to haunt him: “If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
As a family physician, I see the need for everyone to have healthcare coverage as a right and as a privilege.
Why is healthcare reform being presented as healthcare coverage being forced on the American people? It makes common sense that every American needs to have healthcare coverage.
Why is healthcare reform being seen as a mandate to have insurance, rather than a need that we all have in case we become ill?
To me, it seems that some people are under the illusion that they will never become sick and never need healthcare.
No one can be sure that they will not need healthcare. Life is full of surprises.
For the common good and for the good of individuals and families, it makes sense that everyone should have the right and duty to get healthcare coverage.
Government doesn’t do shit to protect his customers.
They try but it’s the other way up the food chain.
Remember red dye #5 is bad for hot dogs.
Well said, Dr.McHugh.
Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh
Life is full of choices. How long have you been practicing if may I ask.
Tootie,
Your blanket statements place you in an incredibly difficult position to defend.
Not everything the government touches gets more expensive: I couldn’t afford any of my education without government-backed loans, and your statement that just about anyone can afford an x-ray out of pocket shows me that you have never been faced with the problem of having to do so.
rcampbell:
You wrote:
“The reality is that Tootie wants to continue the socialism of having everyone else paying for the healthcare for the 40 million uninsured through billions in extra taxes each year instead of being personally responsible by carrying one’s own.”
Uh, some of the mains reasons we all have to pay for 40 million uninsured are:
1) government forces hospitals to treat all patients
2) greedy Democrats refuse to donate to these needy people (George Soros and Warren Buffet alone could cover most of these costs).
Mike:
The feds have NO authority to run loans for scholarships. Find it in the Constitution and site the clause, please.
And I lived without health care insurance for about ten years during which time I also dipped below the poverty line. We paid out of pocket.
Sometimes it is useful to step back and look at first principles so that one is forced to look at the implications of one’s opinions. Dr. McHugh’s comment reflects her view that society should recognize health care as a legal right. I agree with her. The health care reform efforts of the Obama administration have sought to implement that right through legislation. Those who have opposed the legislation have primarily couched their opposition in ideological, rather than policy, terms. Loaded phrases like “government control” and “socialized medicine” are useful for gaining the attention of the fearful, but add nothing to the debate.
Unless one is of the belief that the uninsured and the indigent should be permitted to die when they become ill, we are faced with the question of how to pay for health care. The so-called “free market” has not solved the problem because insurers will not sell protection to those most likely to need medical care. In addition, for-profit insurance companies will inevitably trade off coverage for profits. Therefore, tax dollars have to be committed in one way or another to cover what insurance does not. The mandatory purchase requirements in the current law are unwise not so much because they are mandatory, but because they do nothing about the problem of increasing health care costs.
I believe that we will eventually adopt a single-payer system in this country because that will be the most efficient and cost-effective method for providing universal coverage. And I have yet to hear conservatives suggest concrete alternatives that will achieve that goal.
Dr Rosemary:
After you are done waving your magic wand over the wishing well, consider this. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has power to do Obamacare?
And you do realize that what you are suggesting is that government go to your neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his face, and demand money to pay for someone elses health care?
How did you come up with such a crazy idea?
Did you parents ever teach you that stealing was wrong?
For a singular example . . .
Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant. These kinds of stories are quire common.
And for larger statistical depth? The insurance industry and their lapdog politicians – you know, fascist politicians – have conspired to keep data about deaths directly attributable to bad faith denial of coverage (which includes refusal to provide coverage, bad faith denial of coverage under pretense or technicality, refusal to defend policyholders against lawsuits, exclusions or denial of full benefits and excessive or unwarranted delays in paying claims) out of the public eye. . . mainly to keep insurance company executive from being dragged from their offices and burned in the streets. The main reason this kind of data isn’t readily publicly available is that it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt by insurance companies. But let’s just say that the problem is a common enough problem that there are many law firms who specialize in this type of litigation. However, Harvard did a wonderful study showing the impact of no insurance coverage on mortality. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture either.
Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States — a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.
The NYT has a direct link to the Harvard study. It’s in .pdf form.
Also, what both Dr. McHugh and Mike A. said. It should also be noted that in most Western countries, health care is considered a basic human right. In this country, FDR even explicitly called health care a basic human right in a 1944 speech to Congress. That “our” government is 60 plus years later still protecting private profits over advancing our rights to be at least equal with that of our allies citizenry just goes to show what a bunch of sellout graft whores we have holding office in this country and why America is no longer a shining light of freedom and human/civil rights.
“quite common”
sorry, dining and typing do not mix
Mike Appleton:
“The so-called “free market” has not solved the problem because insurers will not sell protection to those most likely to need medical care.”
there is no “free market” in insurance, it is a heavily regulated industry.
The poor don’t die, they are taken care of by charging the rest of us 50 bucks for 2 aspirin.
Government run single payer health care is socialized medicine. What else is it? Over 50% of the population doesn’t want it. If you want single payer, form a corporation and insure the other 50% of the population that does. No one is stopping you. It should work, you would have a huge pool of insureds. You can make it non-profit and charge whatever your pool can pay.
James M: which enumerated power allows Obamacare?
“just goes to show what a bunch of sellout graft whores we have holding office in this country and why America is no longer a shining light of freedom and human/civil rights.”
no we are that way because 100 years of progressive thought has brought this country to it’s knees.
“no we are that way because 100 years of progressive thought has brought this country to it’s knees.”
We are there because of the tireless efforts of conservatives and corporatists to undo the restrictions on corporate participation in government placed there by FDR in the wake of the failed Business Plot of 1933 and the market crash of 1929.
so how come I can be forced to purchase car insurance?
forced to have vaccinations I don’t want?
…just wondrin….
100 bucks says Charles Koch paid off this judge, too. Just wait and see.
Thank, eniobob, for the comment above at 3:37 PM.
I still believe legislatures, not courts, should deal with issues of economic regulation. I think political developments in 2010 and 2011 have vindicated my view. There was an election in 2010 and some of the membership and leadership of the national government changed. The House has already voted in 2011 to repeal the health care law. There is also a move to repeal individual provisions of the law that may create problems. The political process is working.
The Florida decision is not the last word, since the district courts are now evenly divided. The constitutional law professors of America are also divided. See, for example:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/01/halls-new-article-on-commerce-clause.html
On the issue of severability, I think the judge is wrong. It is true that the law did not contain a severability clause providing that invalidation of one provision should not affect the validity of the remaining clauses. But neither did it have a “non-severability” clause. Congress can provide that if one provision of a law in struck down, then the remainder is invalid also, but it did not do so in this law. So, in the absence of express instructions from Congress, the court could have inferred that the rest of the law should remain valid after the invalid individual mandate was struck down.
A lot of cases have held that legislation duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President comes to the courts with a presumption of constitutionality. The court should have considered this and left the valid parts of the law in effect.
In general, the issue may not even be ripe for decision, since no one has been forced to buy insurance yet. The standing of the state governments seems suspect, since none of them are directly affected as yet. It might be better to decide the individual mandate when an individual is actually mandated.
There is a lot of lofty discussion about the Constitution. On the other hand, these cases may just involve a bunch of politicians elected to the state legislatures, along with the governors and attorneys general, who simply seem to have a disagreement with another bunch of politicians elected by the very same people to the Congress and the White House. I think it is better for those people themselves to decide these issues by electing representatives, not for a handful of unelected jurists.
Even the judge seems to realize that the decision is just a bump in the road to the Supreme Court. He supposedly struck down the entire law, but he refused to enjoin its operation, so it continues to stand. No one seems to be affected by the ruling. That may be like an advisory opinion and Article III may not allow such an advisory opinion.
The enumerated powers of Congress include the powers to tax, to regulate commerce, and to make all laws necessary to carry the enumerated powers into effect. The Founders framed these powers in general terms with very few specific limitations, thus making those powers very broad. The so-called “original intent” of the Framers is very difficult to divine 220 years later, since we cannot read their minds retroactively and discern their views on matters they never dreamed of. Was it within the original intent for the US to put a man on the Moon?
W=c,
Car insurance is state regulated. Owning a car is optional. However, technically speaking you can own a car without insurance, you just won’t be able to get it tagged and face a ticket and/or license suspension if stopped. There are PI attorneys who deal with this situation everyday.
As far as vaccinations go? Who forced you to have a vaccination? No one can force medical treatment upon you. They can try, but absent extenuating circumstances that would be legal rationale for a court order – like you’re a minor with non-compliant parents in a matter of life or death? As an adult, you are always free to refuse treatment including vaccinations.
OT, completely, but this made my blood absolutely boil.
This is the kind of maladaptive and evil shit that happens when people operate solely off profit motives:
100 dogs in Canada killed after business slows
From the article: “Marcie Moriarty says some dogs were shot, while others’ throats were slit before their bodies were pitched into a mass grave.”
Further proof that greedy people suck and have all the compassion of stone.
Bdaman: here is why waivers are given from your own link.
From Bdman’s linked article: “The waivers have been granted to hundreds of so-called “mini-med” plans that offer limited health coverage to employees. The waivers are designed to preserve stability in the insurance market until new state-run insurance exchanges open in 2014.”
Kind’a friendly to employees and employers including Employers like McDonalds (which also got a waiver), a marvelously successful, large corporation, not some nickel and dime outfit laboring to make ends meet. “McDonalds Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.”** Strong-arm much?
Posting the list of unions only is disingenuous to the point of propaganda and I’m glad Rafflaw called you out on it.
The list of companies exempted when there were only a couple of hundred is interesting. It includes: various cities, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany, Heritage Christian Services, Mounds View Public Schools, North State Bank, medical services groups, management groups, a county; you name a catagory of business and it’s on the list and several example from each catagory are represented. Thats from when there was only 222 exemptions granted. The list is linked below.****
What’s your agenda in picking out the unions, shouldn’t unionized employees have access to health care? Should they be treated differently than McDonalds employees? Should their management be treated differently?
**Wall Street Journal: Business/Health section, Sept. 30, 2010
****http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
You know, I think this may be a good opportunity to go back to square one and do it right if the Supreme court finds against the mandate. The Congress will have to then revisit healthcare in a substantive way. Maybe if the debate is honest this time and no deals are made prior to even considering the matter, there would be a chance for real healthcare reform. Single payer or Medicare for all, or at least a public option (again, a Medicare buy in) can get a fair shot at passage.
If nothing happens or the reform is weakened then at least people will know who the enemies of reform are. That might be a good thing for 2012.
Lotta,
I am not as optimistic as you that if the mandate is declared unconstitutional by the Supremes that it could lead to an honest discussion of the need for a public option or medicare for all program. I wish it would, but the Republicans in the Congress will not give that victory to Obama even if the country suffers. They are bound and determined to buck him at every turn and with the money behind them, why should they change course? Besides, I think the Supremes will find the entire bill Constitutional, but they will take their sweet time to decide when it does come to them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a decision fairly close to the 2012 elections maybe even after the elections. Of course, the timing would be a coincidence.
Wickard v. Filburn was possibly the worst SCOTUS decision since Dredd Scott.
Exactly. Wickard v. Filburn was decided so broadly, that there are few limitations on the scope of Federal legislation. SCOTUS should reverse. I don’t think they will, still we can but hope.
If they do though, there’s still a good argument that the Federal Govt has powers under the constitution to enact health care laws (specifically). It could be argued that it merely extends “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” (July 1798) to all citizens. That such a law was deemed constitutional by those who framed the constitution is a powerful, and I think unimpeachable, argument.
Here’s an interesting post from The Volokh Conspiracy on the 1798 act: http://volokh.com/2010/04/02/an-act-for-the-relief-of-sick-and-disabled-seamen/
Zoe,
Wickard v. Filburn is interesting because at it’s heart it poses the question: how tightly can Congress regulate interstate commerce?
If Congress can micromanage and fix prices, then the case was rightly decided — farmers all growing extra wheat for the use of their families and livestock would have an effect on the price of both wheat and meat.
Of course, taxing people who fail to buy health insurance is yet another few step removed from even that effect on commerce.
Disclaimer:
I’m Australian.
Obamacare as originally framed bore a very strong resemblance to the current Australian system, much as the Bill of Rights bore a strong resemblance to Queen Anne’s Bill of Rights (1689)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Anyway, the Australian system, while imperfect, works rather better than either the Canadian or UK systems. Miles better than the current US system (or lack thereof).
However… it was altered, changed, re-written etc so God alone knows what’s in it. Most, if not all, of the good bits were removed due to pressure by one special interest group or another, and a lot of rubbish inserted. To call it a “legislative abomination”, no matter how well-intentioned, is not hyperbole.
Then there’s the 750+ “exceptions” that have been granted to various special interest groups so they don’t have to comply with its more onerous provisions for the foreseeable future. The SEIU is just the most blatant example.
But constitutional? Parts may not be, it’s so complex I don’t know how anyone can tell that just yet, but on the whole, I think it is. Conceptually it is, even if the execution is not.
While I agree with Prof Volokh on most things (and it would be an act of supreme courage, folly, or ignorance to gainsay him)…
The federal government may, however, impose an additional income tax surcharge of, say, $5000 on anyone earning more than $100,000. But allow a 100% tax deduction (up to $5000) for anyone buying private health insurance.
That’s not “mandating” it. It’s similar to the system in Australia.
Something like 80 years ago, a relative of mine (an uncle?) was in the merchant marine. I have known of the Merchant Marine Hospitals since I was rather young.
When I learned that the health care legislation included mandatory purchase of commercial insurance, I was astonished by the thought that such a mandate would make the insurance unconstitutional.
A single payer mutual system, not for profit, might do absolute wonders for people’s health and overall productivity.
Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the merchant marine was a critical industry in terms of the national interest.
Now, what industry is not critical to the national interest?
What was it I heard on some broadcast, and who said it? Something like, the rich are rich because the poor are poor…
One person steals 90 percent of the productivity of ten other people, the one person need not be productive to become very wealthy. Sounds a tad like reserve banking?
Perhaps there is something worth learning?
Merchant mariners did have decent care in terms of community standards of care, at reasonable cost. Perhaps there is something worth remembering that has been almost forgotten…
The waivers are designed to preserve stability in the insurance market until new state-run insurance exchanges open in 2014.”
It failed. There is no stability in the insurance market. Rates are going up and they are dropping people. Unfortunately for some who like their plan they won’t be able to keep it but there’s a new government program that they can sign up for.
Bdaman,
you are being intellectually dishonest to suggest that the waivers that have just been given over the last several months are responsible for insurance cost rising. The insurance companies were jacking up the prices 10-50% before “Obamacare” was passed. They are doing what they know best and that is to screw the little guy. If you want cheaper prices, tell your Republican friends that you want a public option or a Medicare for all plan. By the way, there is stability in the insurance market. The insurance companies are making millions and they are doing what they have done in the past. So where is the instability?
Bdaman: “It failed. There is no stability in the insurance market. Rates are going up and they are dropping people.”
—-
What Rafflaw said.
The failure of the new law, or any law to effectively limit the % of increase is the fault. Give any rapacious business a couple of years to raise prices after telling them that things will change in a couple of years is an invitation to steal. Why am I not surprised this happened? And it’s a gift that keeps giving because a couple of years from now we, taxpayers will be paying the difference between buyers maximum cost in targeted groups and the cost of the insurance as offered. Gee, it’s a shame no one in government saw this coming and prevented it.
This is another one of the divisive issues that Republicans used in their push for offices at the state level in 2010. They will continue touting the issue through 2012 simply for the divisive effect. In the end Obama will triumph and the mandates will hold but the Republicans will make as much noise as possible as they clang the “states rights” bell. And we all know what they are really saying with that “states rights” jargon.
They are very quiet about the issues they really want to get through their states’ legislatures. The right hand may be waving the “states rights” flag … watch closely to see what the left hand is doing for there is the real danger.
Bdaman, you didn’t answer my question. Based on the four corners of my posting do you have an answer regarding equity of treatment for unions v non-union?
Here’s a Think Progress (1/31/2011) post worth reading:
Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/
Excerpt:
The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,’ as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.
But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Per Tootie:
Uh, some of the mains reasons we all have to pay for 40 million uninsured are:
1) government forces hospitals to treat all patients
2) greedy Democrats refuse to donate to these needy people (George Soros and Warren Buffet alone could cover most of these costs).
1) Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want to treat all sick people. We should allow for-profit insurance company and for-profit hospital bureaucratsies to decide who gets treated, who lives and who dies. BTW, the law reequiring all patients be treated was signed by that dirty atheistic pinko commie, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.
I find it particularly appalling that Tootie claims to be a Christian and yet acts in the most outrageously non-Christian manner. Christ preached essentially the Democratic Party platform of caring for the sick, the aged and the poor. Poor examples of being a Christian, such as Tootie, want to impose their religion on our secular government (of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE), but don’t want the government to act in a Christian way toward those PEOPLE.
2) Ever at the ready with either the wrong answer or flailing rhetoricly when caught without a coherent argument, Tootie doesn’t want the government to require healthcare insurance from the for-profit insurance industry and is perfectly willing to selectively reject the tried and true conservative mantra of personal resposibility and to even decide who should pay the bill.
Ya gotta love the humor and the irony of a conservative using a ridiculous phrase like “greedy Democrats”. That’s always been the complaint against Democrats: that we’re greedy, stingy selfish………….
Frankly I’d be dead right now without Medicare and my secondary health care insurance. I couldn’t have afforded any of the procedures that have kept me alive, nor the drugs I must take for the rest of my life. As I lay in my hospital room the week following my transplant I saw the news story about a much younger man in Arizona, his wife and three young children. He had been approved for a transplant, but the State refused to pay for it. I’ve been saved by the luck of the draw and he probably will die. Anyone whose heart isn’t moved by this man’s plight is a consciousless bastard, who cares only for themselves and those close to them (maybe not even those close to them). If they pretend to be religious they are total hypocrites. If they think of themselves as ethical they are also hypocrites. The accessibility of adequate health care should be a right of every human. Those who don’t think so also
then believe that wealth or circumstance should be the arbiter of who lives or dies.
To those so happy with this ruling it is but one small aspect of a much larger battle. The battle which will decide if we are to live in a just society, or if most of us become serfs to the wealthy and powerful. What is ironic here is that so many of the posters so happy with the ruling, will find themselves, loved ones and/or friends crushed under the weight of out of control health care and blame the wrong people for their misery. I don’t wish this on anyone, yet I too was once healthy and strong and I know how quickly that can change in a persons life.
As far as the constitutionality of this current law, I have no real opinion, since this is not the law I would have wanted passed anyway. However, for the pre-existing conditions part and other aspects alone relief was needed.
Well said Mike S.
Nice catch Elaine. This Vinson guy is looking less and less “impartial” the more I read about him.
Amen to rcampbell’s comments. It does amaze me that for such Christian people, so they claim, they just can’t seem to shake the money changer label.
Doing the work of the master…..the devil de orange….
It will be interesting to see how the standing issue shakes out. My guess is the non-state litigants will not have the money or will to force these decisions up the court system and file a successful petition. that is unfortunate, as individuals who are directly affected ought to have the right to enforce constitutional limitations on legislative action.
It is surprising how the legal decisions in both Florida and Virginia follow a very similar analysis. The slight difference in conclusion appears tied to representations made by counsel for the government in the Florida case.
My initial legal analysis can be found at:
http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/01/virginia-and-florida-healthcare-rulings.html
“Tootie
1, January 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Dr Rosemary:
After you are done waving your magic wand over the wishing well, consider this. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has power to do Obamacare?
And you do realize that what you are suggesting is that government go to your neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his face, and demand money to pay for someone elses health care?
How did you come up with such a crazy idea?
Did you parents ever teach you that stealing was wrong?”
————————————————————-
If I didn’t tell you today, allow me to now:
Is being a disrespectful and obnoxious turd something new for you or is it just inherent to your nature? Don’t bother answering – I’ll go with the latter as opposed to the former. Christian, my ass.
————————————————————-
Dr. McHugh,
Well said. Thank you for your perspective.
ZOE BRAIN
You cannot just pull constitutionality out of your ear and pretend it is when you say:
“but on the whole, I think it is [constitutional]. Conceptually it is, even if the execution is not”.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.
CITE VERBATIM which portion thereof allows for Obamacare.
ONLY THEN could you be sure.
And mind you, you have to know what the FRAMERS (the men who wrote or voted for the Constitution) thought that part of the document meant.
To know that you have to look up Elliot’s Debates or Ferrand’s Records (I’ve provided a link below).
And how do I know you have to read the debates and records of the ratification? No one less than the Father of the Constitution–James Madison– says you have to. Naturally, Democrats (Progressives), who have run the US public schools for about one hundred years made sure American school children NEVER saw these debates or records.
But I digress.
So we have records–documents–that refer to what the meaning of the words are in the Constitution and what the ratifiers believed them to mean.
Only evil usurpers (e.g. Democrats/progressives/Marxists) would like to pretend these meanings are complicated and beyond the understanding of commoners. And from this type of arrogance we get a bazillion SCOTUS rulings which ignore what the framers meant. As so for you to quote them, instead of citing the proper constitutional clause, is for you to compound their error.
The Anti-Federalist Americans (at the time of our founding) didn’t like the Constitution, especially the necessary and proper clause. This is because they felt it would be used to usurp power and become tyrannical.
No, no said the Madison. IMPOSSIBLE!
He writes in Federalist #44:
“Of …the “power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the FOREGOING POWERS, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof… no part can appear more completely invulnerable [to abuse].” [my emphasis]
Madison says there is no threat of abuse from the necessary and proper clause. And the words “foregoing powers” take the bite out of any potential abuse. All that is necessary and proper applies to a KNOWN quantity of powers and not an infinite quantity of unknown powers (as Obama and the Democrats imply).
And, Madison says, the clause is most viciously attacked by the Federalists. As it turns out the Anti-Federalists were right and Madison was wrong about the potential for abuse as now we Americans are on the verge of a federal totalitarian police-state that even reckons it has the power to tell us what to eat, how to light our lamps by our bedside, and recommend when we should die.
It is quite clear from the construction of the Constitution (and you can read Article 1 Section 8 for yourself), that the necessary and proper clause refers most DIRECTLY to the words above it in Article 1 Section 8. And NO WHERE in Article 1 Section 8 is there found the power for Obamacare.
Where do you see in Article 1 Section 8 words like “To provide all citizens with medical care”? If it ain’t there it ain’t anywhere, most certainly not in the Commerce clause.
It is not be found in the General Welfare clause either. And the power-granting structure of the term General Welfare appears at the very beginning of Article 1 Section 8 and refers to the enumerated powers in particular.
Where else can you find the power for Obamacare? No where. You, like the Democrats/filthy leftists, and Marxists are just making up crap.
Fortunately for me, the General Welfare clause also cannot justify Obamacare as the phase has an entirely different meaning than what evil Democrats (and all are evil) say. That term came DIRECTLY from the Articles of Confederation.
And the term “general welfare” was included in the Constitution for the express purpose of providing a MECHANISM/grant of power to pay for debts from the War of Independence from Britain or any other debts incurred by the Federal government in the future for running the general government as outlined in the Constitution.
Thus the term “general welfare” has nothing to do with welfare or social programs as the
filthy leftists,murderous Marxists, Democrats pretend.I would like to quote here from Brutus (an Anti-Federalist). The Anti-Federalists were those to whom the Federalist Papers were often directed. And, to the Anti-Federalists everlasting credit, the Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution.
Brutus writes in Anti-Federalist #1
“This government is to possess absolute and UNCONTROULABLE [SIC] POWER, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS, AND ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED IN THIS CONSTITUTION…”
I capitalized the above important words. Brutus says because of the necessary and proper clause, the new government would become, essentially, EVERYTHING they had just fought a war to get rid of: absolute power (i.e. uncontrollable). Brutus was right or else America wouldn’t be in the trouble it is in.
Madison says there will be checks and balances against usurpers (Federalist 44):
“If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] … the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts…”
By the way, you do understand that Madison here presumes government officials can be evil? Okay? Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
He says the usurpation by congress can be stopped by the president (but Obama didn’t stop it since he signed the law) or the judiciary. And that is going on right now as seen in yesterday’s court case and the soon to be case before SCOTUS.
Madison again:
“…and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.” (Note again: the usurpers in question are very evil people called: government officials).
Madison says here that if the president AND the judiciary fail to stop the ursurpation of Congress, the power to check the abusers falls to the people through their legislators to annul the acts of the former legislators who abused their power. (That is what Rand Paul and Congressman Bachmann are busy doing).
Most at this blog are condemning the GOP for resorting to what Madison said the people ought to resort to when our leaders usurp: change over to legislators who will stop the usurpation.
Madison writes in Federalist 43 about what happens if all else fails and the usurpers take control and proper legislators cannot be found in office. But before he gets to what remedy the people ultimately have, he refers to the Confederation–our form of government which existed AFTER the “Revolutionary” War and before the Constitution.
He writes:
“A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
In the above, Madison says the Confederation was too easy to break apart if any one member violated another member. Thus the whole confederation would collapse because of the law of contract.
He continues:
“Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits.”
He is asking how will the offended state be able to assert its claims if the rest cannot address the “infractions” lodged against it by others? He is saying without a stronger federal government, the weaker members will not be able to make their case to the other members and disunion will occur. He is even saying a rebellious state cannot be stopped.
He is saying that the time has come to make it not so easy for the confederation of states to break apart. And a “veil” should be drawn over this idea.
Why should it be drawn?
Because, Madison says:
“The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.”
Things had changed.
What changed?
What changed was that The Articles of Confederation had proven to be ineffective in protecting the states from foreign enemies and from attacking each other. It proved itself ineffective to maintain unity.
Madison goes deeper into the matter of breaking up a group of states (now the former colonial states). This time, he peers into the future with a quick glace to the past, including the recent violent past (one of the things behind the veil).
“The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it.”
This is indeed delicate.
Delicate it refers to hard feelings existing at the time between the various post-colonial states and,among other things, overthrowing tyrants which the founders themselves did.
Very delicate indeed.
Madison and those who promoted the new government were indeed providing a “flattering prospect” (hypothetically) which forbids him and they from being “overcurious” about discussing it.
Overcurious about discussing what?
REBELLION AGAINST TYRANTS! NULLIFICATION! SECESSION! And every other thing the founders themselves participated in and everything that was beginning to happen all over again because the Articles of Confederation were not able to stop them!
LOL
Quick! Cover it with the veil! =)
Madison then writes:
“It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself.”
What is one of those cases?
I believe Madison is suggesting that another generation to come may have to do what THEY did: overthrow those who themselves are trying to overthrow the rights of the people. And to avoid this disunion or secession, he says: vote for the Constitution and the individual states will be protected from wrong.
In the framers’ and founders’ minds were etched The Rights of Englishmen as coming to them from a great tradition going back to the Magna Charta. As coming from Lex Rex. And as coming from Vindicae Contra Tyrannos. All these documents were read widely and voraciously by the founding generation and THESE DOCUMENTS AS READ BY THE FOUNDING GENERATION FUELED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THROWING OFF TYRANTS.
It is absurd to believe Madison had suddenly forgot all these great documents which underlay the “rebellion” he participated in. And this “rebellion” is also part of the delicate matter Madison wishes to cover with the veil.
And as you know, a veil is frail fabric which you can still see through to that which you are covering. He is most certainly not suggesting the delicate matter below the veil be buried. He is only asking that they not look at it too closely while they (and we) try an experiment: the Constitution.
But he in no wise cuts off for us the same opportunity he himself took to throw off tyrants, though Democrats act like he would.
This probably explains why Democrats have made sure American school children do not know about all these many documents I refer to. These filthy leftists (fresh from their baths) have a Marxist nirvana or totalitarian police state to impose on us all and they do not want WE modern Americans to know what truths THOSE past Americans knew about the unalieanble right to throw them off.
Madison again:
“The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected…”
Madison here goes BEYOND the Constitution about what we owe each other morally and what our humanity brings us. In this case what we owe each other isn’t health care through the federal government or else it would be listed in the Constitution above the phrase “necessary and proper”.
Thus the individual states or individuals themselves owe health care to their own families. I owe it to my offspring. That is the humane thing I can do. And if I can do more, I ought to but the government has no right to force it on me at gunpoint.
At the most, my local state (Maryland or Texas, for example) owes to me. If the feds owed it to us it would have been PUT in the Constitution. And the only way it can ever lawfully be there in the future is through an amendment to the Constitution.
Madison says:
“…whilst considerations of a common interest, and, ABOVE ALL, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion…”(my emphasis)
Ah, the remembrance of the “endearing scenes which are past,”. It’s 1788. The war was from 1775 to 1783. It’s only five years later when Madison writes those words. This probably refers to the interim peace and relative unity after war, and even the victory of throwing off tyrants (and the bloody force used to make it so). But now there are “obstacles” to “reunion” and further endearing scenes.
Therefore Madison urges: vote for the Constitution.
The reason for it is to avoid further conflict. But inherent in the suggestion is that further conflict in the future is not worrisome because the Constitution poses no threat. And if it did then, Madison says that will become
“…one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself.”
In other words, if all that Madison promises to us to protect us from tyranny fails, then, we, like Madison, have the right to rend that veil and take off the chains of our oppressors however it may have to be done.
If Democrats don’t stop acting like King George III it is to this “delicate” subject that they stupidly insist on taking us.
And this “delicate” subject of throwing off despots is why Obama is stepping on the gas to turn American into a totalitarian police state.
He sees the writing on the wall.
He knows most of the people do not want to be enslaved to Marxism or tyrannical and absolute arbitrary power. Yes, the Democrat rank and file want it, but they want it only because they are stupid enough to beg for slavery to the state. And they do richly deserve slavery and despotism. But I don’t. And so I dissent from it and wish to remind my fellow citizens of the blessed heritage of our rights as they come down to us through the centuries even before we were a country.
And Obama sees the writing on the wall while he hypocritically lectures Egyptian officials about the “rights” of the people.
One stop shopping for all pertinent information regarding this post is found here (until Obama and the Democrats can hide it):
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos can be found there too:
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
Stam:
Your parents didn’t teach you stealing was wrong either?
(geeze, what a creepy world we live in these days)
Tootie,
for you to call out someone for “not proving” their claim is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it?
James M:
The 1798 Act for seamen you refer to falls under the enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 to raise armies, maintain a navy, and use all the necessary and proper laws needed to do so thereby. Congress, to its credit, has included the health care of those who were injured by congresses lawful power to raise armies and have navy.
Maria, Tommy, and Mary Sue, age 5, attending kindergarten in the fall are not in the military.
Therefore it is not a precedent for kindergartners, but only those serving in the military.
rafflaw:
No.
Tootie,
be honest now. WWJD?
Blouise,
“Republicans will make as much noise as possible as they clang the “states rights” bell”
————————————————————–
State’s rights. I’m glad you brought that up, Blouise. Since state’s rights and the individual mandate are the main points of contention the GOP has with the ACA, I found the below article my sister sent me very interesting as it shows, once again, how the GOP picks and chooses what they want government in and out of:
Arizona lawmakers to consider adoption, divorce bills
Two controversial bills that failed to win enough support last year have returned to the Legislature this session.
Public hearings will be held Wednesday on bills that propose to give adoption preference to married couples and make it more difficult to get divorced. Both bills were brought by the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, which lobbies for conservative family issues.
Adoption bill
Senate Bill 1188, sponsored by Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, would require an adoption agency to “give primary consideration to adoptive placement with a married man and woman.” It permits the agency to consider a single person if, among other things, the child’s best interests require the adoption by a single person or if a married couple is not available and the alternative is extended foster care.
Currently, only Utah has a law requiring priority for married couples, though several other states have bans on adoptions by same-sex couples or by unmarried couples.
About one-third of the foster children adopted in Arizona are adopted by an unmarried person.
Opponents of the bill last year said they feared it would decrease the number of people willing to consider adopting children.
Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod argued last year that “a child deserves a chance to have a mom and a dad.”
Divorce bill
Senate Bill 1187, also sponsored by Gray, would allow someone going through a divorce to ask the court to extend the 60-day waiting period required before a divorce can proceed.
The request must include a reason for the request as well as either a plan for reconciliation or a counseling schedule.
The court can extend the waiting period up to 120 days.
This bill is slightly different than the one proposed last year, which would have extended the waiting period of all divorces to 180 days. Proponents of that bill said it would help decrease the number of divorces.
Opponents said extending the waiting period would be hard on children and could be dangerous for the other spouse in cases of domestic violence.
The Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee, which is chaired by Gray, will hold a public hearing on both bills at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Senate Room 3, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/01/20110201arizona-adoption-divorce-bill.html#ixzz1CjKkSQkJ
While this is a state legislature, I think it is representative of the GOP as a whole.
They don’t want millions of people to have access to health care, but they want to force you to stay married. Go figure.
Tootie,
I’ll type it really slow so you can understand:
B-i-t-e m-e.
Raff,
Now, this is just an educated guess, but Jesus would probably just stare blankly for awhile and then try and figure out English. Probably get pretty freaked out by cars and electric lights for awhile too.
campbell 1, February 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
You wrote:
“Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want to treat all sick people. We should allow for-profit insurance company and for-profit hospital bureaucratsies [sic] to decide who gets treated, who lives and who dies. BTW, the law reequiring [sic] all patients be treated was signed by that dirty atheistic pinko commie, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.”
I’m not a Republican and I don’t care that Reagan enacted unconstitutional laws except that I don’t like unconstitutional laws.
Nor do I believe I have the right to stick a gun in your face and force you to hand over your money to take care of someone elses medical care. I expect the same from you especially if you continue to presume you are more decent than me.
rcampbell:
“I find it particularly appalling that Tootie claims to be a Christian and yet acts in the most outrageously non-Christian manner. Christ preached essentially the Democratic Party platform of caring for the sick, the aged and the poor.”
Yours is a stupendously ignorant statement. If you really do know better than that, then I would have to say you are malicious lair. Christ NEVER EVER suggested that government should help the poor and you ought to prove your ignorant statement right here before everyone: Please cite the passages from the Bible in which Christ tells government to help the needy with their medical needs.
I’ll save you time, you won’t find such a passage.
The verses you refer to is Christ telling the church (Christian believers) to handle it, not the state. I find it amusing when leftists that leftists are always whining about separation of church and state, but they get all pious and religious when they think they might benefit personally from joining church to state if it meant they could fleece the rich for the leftists own profit.
Only the Marxists may make profits!
No, no. Christ asked CHRISTIANS to help the poor, sick, and needy THROUGH the CHURCH (not the state). The state was murdering the Christians at that time!
There has been no religion or private organization in the history of the world who has helped the needy like the church has. They have run hospitals for over a millennium. If the depraved, wicked, godless folks and critics had helped the Christians long ago with their blessed efforts things wouldn’t have gotten so bad.
Where were the leftists Warren Buffett and Bill Gates all during the time when Christians were providing for the poor and needy all these years? Lobbying government to rob from the middle class to do it instead?
rcampbell:
“Poor examples of being a Christian, such as Tootie, want to impose their religion on our secular government (of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE), but don’t want the government to act in a Christian way toward those PEOPLE.”
According to you I am NOT the people precisely because I am a Christian.
Thus you are irrational to the extreme.
rcampbell:
“Ever at the ready with either the wrong answer or flailing rhetoricly [sic] when caught without a coherent argument, Tootie doesn’t want the government to require healthcare insurance from the for-profit insurance industry and is perfectly willing to selectively reject the tried and true conservative mantra of personal resposibility [sic] and to even decide who should pay the bill.”
Oh, the furies forbid we be responsible! Somehow, I don’t think even a Marxist would suggest we not be responsible.
I’m not sure what you are blathering about hysterically in that last paragraph but I assure you that I do not oppose people being responsible for health care. I am responsible for my offspring’s health care and never thought otherwise. And to accuse me of not being responsible for it would be a lie.
If dumb leftists would stop copulating like rutting pigs long enough to realize they couldn’t afford their dear little piglets, I presume we wouldn’t be in such a mess. I’m not the one being irresponsible here. I’m taking care of my own as best I can, and I’m sorry if it doesn’t meet your standards.
And, of course, it might be real stupid of someone to think I WASN’T in need of a hand out for medical care myself. Of course, I don’t approve of robbery by government to see to it that I have it. So I would be appalled if government stole on my behalf and I would be furious if I was forced by law into their criminal enterprise.
And it would be real stupid of someone to think I didn’t believe the states had the power to run health care systems, they do.
rcampbell again:
“Ya gotta love the humor and the irony of a conservative using a ridiculous phrase like “greedy Democrats”. That’s always been the complaint against Democrats: that we’re greedy, stingy selfish………….”
Greedy is the nicest word I use to describe Democrats. The more accurate word is thieves. That refers to people who think other peoples’ money belongs to them and take it illegally. What stupid people often do not realize is that poor people can be greedy and rich people benevolent. To presume that every one who is poor is virtuous or that many of them are not greedy is stupid.
In a pure Democracy the many poor could vote to plunder the few rich and steal all their money (because it just seems right to do so). But isn’t right. It is immoral. It is always immoral.
As immoral as wealthy people who do not help the poor.
(note: I support fully funding Medicare until it can be abolished through attrition.)
Stam:
Did you stomp off from the sandbox with your pail and shovel yesterday?
rafflaw:
What would Jesus do about what?
From what I understand Jesus has already done everything he needs to do.
But, I would be interested in your specifics.
Tootie:
“Did you stomp off from the sandbox with your pail and shovel yesterday?”
————————————————————–
Ha! This from the woman who passes off pettiness as a “christian virtue.”
By the way, I talked to Jesus last night and he told me to tell you that while he does love you, he still thinks your an asshole.
Have a nice day, Toots.
Make that “you ARE”
“rafflaw 1, February 1, 2011 at 11:15 am
Well said Mike S.<-May I add TOUCHE! to that.
Nice catch Elaine. This Vinson guy is looking less and less “impartial” the more I read about him."
And don't forget:
"Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!"
"impartial [ɪmˈpɑːʃəl]
adj
not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased"
BLIZZARD!
Watch out Chicago and elsewhere.
If you are sitting about posting comment you might want to be about making provisions instead.
Per Tootie:
Uh, some of the mains reasons we all have to pay for 40 million uninsured are:
1) government forces hospitals to treat all patients
2) greedy Democrats refuse to donate to these needy people (George Soros and Warren Buffet alone could cover most of these costs).
—————————————————–
Tootie, you only said this to piss people off right?
you couldn’t REALLY be that big of an idiot could you?
Stam:
Usurping the Constitution is no small event and condemning isn’t petty, but your incessant personal attacks on me are.
You accuse me of being petty but it is you who is stooping to nasty personal insults. It isn’t going unnoticed by reasonable people.
Where is the proof that Obamcare is Constitutional? Or did you forget (while slashing around in your ocean of venom against me) what the topic was?
Here: I give you a new shovel and pail and invite back into the sandbox. You can sit in that corner over there and I will sit in this one.
And now, your proof that the Constitution allows for Obamacare. Where is it?
Woosty:
What choice is there? I must be the idiot. You are all knowing.
Nothing more needs to be discussed.
Tootles,
You don’t have to admit something you demonstrate daily, but it is nice for a change.
Tootie:
How bad do I feel that you are all butt-hurt. Poor, Tootie. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Awwww.
As you can tell, I’ve had just enough of the bile you vomit. Therefore, I don’t feel bad at all – you are reaping what you’ve sown, missy. Build yourself a bridge and get over it.
I must give you kudos for being honest, for once: ” I must be the idiot.”
Honesty is so refreshing – cleanses the soul!
“If dumb leftists would stop copulating like rutting pigs long enough to realize they couldn’t afford their dear little piglets”
Tootie,
At least get your diatribes right. The highest rate of unwanted children being born is in the South and particularly the Bible Belt. People of my ilk are the ones acting responsibly. In my own case my parents taught me early about sexuality and the need not to reproduce children that were unwanted. The highest birth rates of legitimate children are among fundamentalists of all faiths and that is mainly because of two factors.
1. They have no idea what sex is about and the men think it’s all about them. Their idea of womanhood is to keep them barefoot, pregnant, but also working and doing the chores. It’s an evil, hateful cycle perpetrated by people who falsely believe they know anything about morality.
2. They oppose birth control and sex education, but then talk about the sin of abortion. It is because of this that the anti-abortion movement has blood on their hands.
Stam:
I’m wondering why you are so interested in butts, asses, and things in ones underwear and how you think they apply to constitutional disquisitions. And, if you were talking about cigarettes and mules, I’m still not sure what you mean.
But that’s okay, I simply don’t expect more from you.
I take it then, that you haven’t any evidence that Obamacare is constitutional and therefore you need to discuss things in peoples’ underwear?
Has it always been that way for you? And didn’t anyone tell you that it is rather creepy?
Never mind. No need to answer. I don’t want the answer.
The conclusion can now be drawn: you cannot demonstrate that Obamacare is constitutional.
I will not ask you questions that apply to anything outside your panties; and since I most certainly will not be asking you ANY questions whatsoever about what is in them, no matter how desperately you need to discuss them, you can be sure there will no more questions at all coming your way.
I have shown very well the case for constitutionality and you have magnificently proven your case for undies, butts, and asses.
Surely someone, somewhere, must be proud of you.
Mike:
There you go again inadvertently talking about black people. Or perhaps overlooking that they exist? You do realize that the Bible belt is also the Black belt? And you do realize that blacks have a higher birth rate AND abortion rate than whites? Are you now going to tell me all blacks are Christians and that explains it?
Christians, as you ought to know, tend to understand they are responsible for their own children. So even if they are copulating out of wedlock and/or having babies they cannot afford by your reckoning shouldn’t they all be Democrats? No, You probably believe they are GOPers. So you kinda defeat your own argument.
You cannot have it both ways. Either these fundies you refer to are rutting like pigs and demanding health care OR they are rutting like pigs and not demanding health care. And I tell you what ever they are doing, most of them are not Democrats.
Blacks have more unintended pregnancies than whites and all other groups. What are you going to blame that on if not Christianity? Being black?
In your effort to slam Christians did you slam blacks and even Hispanics? Are blacks sitting around demanding their wimmen stay bare-footed too?
You need to get out of your old, decrepit, lefty, rut and read some new data, new studies, and new political analysis. The old falsehoods you learned in the 60s are being smashed to bits by the internet.
What ever happened to be fruitful and multiply? Oh, that’s an evil plan indeed! Shame on Jehovah!
Blood? Blood! On whose hands? You don’t fool me or Jehovah.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/080123_nd.htm
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html
Tootie,
“What ever happened to be fruitful and multiply? Oh, that’s an evil plan indeed! Shame on Jehovah!”
I know you meant it as sarcasm, but there’s a saying about a broken clock that applies.
Elaine M.
From The Atlantic:
“It is difficult to imagine,” Judge Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling, “that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”
Tea Party analogy? Check. Head-scratching analysis? Check. Judge Vinson wrote:
“… the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ‘slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.
The uninsured can only be said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the manner as described by the defendants: (i) if they get sick or injured; (ii) if they are still uninsured at that specific point in time; (iii) if they seek medical care for that sickness or injury; (iv) if they are unable to pay for the medical care received; and (v) if they are unable or unwilling to make payment arrangements directly with the health care provider, or with assistance of family, friends, and charitable groups, and the costs are thereafter shifted to others.”
Got that? The uninsured can only have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce” — and thus be regulated by Congress — if they are subject to the precise conditions which exist today all over the country, and which prompted the Act in the first place. The judge acknowledges this point, to his credit, saying that the Congress would of course have the power to regulate the millions of people who meet his five criteria above. But he then concludes: “But, to cast the net wide enough to reach everyone in the present, with the expectation that they will (or could) take those steps in the future, goes beyond the existing ‘outer limits’ of the Commerce Clause” (emphasis in original).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/judge-vinsons-health-care-smackdown-whats-a-tea-party-without-tea-leaves/70560/
As rafflaw and I discussed, they are trying to lay the groundwork to negate everything in civil rights laws that rely on the Commerce clause to be deemed constitutional. This is a big broadside. SCOTUS ruling in this will determine whether all progress in the past 60 years will collapse.
Buckeye,
The Republicans are trying to take us back to the 19th Century. I will be anxiously waiting to see how the appeals turn out. I think that this Vinson guy is dirty. Just my opinion, but it doesn’t add up. I think we need to see how well Tony Perkins knows Judge Vinson.
Buckeye,
Thanks for the link!
*****
rafflaw,
You’re off by a century. I think you meant they’d like to take us back to the 18th Century.
Oh, Tootie:
Stam:
“I’m wondering why you are so interested in butts, asses, and things in ones underwear and how you think they apply to constitutional disquisitions. And, if you were talking about cigarettes and mules, I’m still not sure what you mean.”
First, I said you’re all butt-hurt, meaning, your fragile ego is shattered because you have been called out – repeatedly – for the American Taliban you are. It’s a saying. Just as my saying “Christian my ass.” It’s a saying. If you want to focus on things that simply aren’t there, go for it. You injected sexuality into it, and shows that you have your own deep-seated issues with asses. That, lady, is a personal problem for you.
“I take it then, that you haven’t any evidence that Obamacare is constitutional and therefore you need to discuss things in peoples’ underwear?”
Why would I bother telling you what numerous people here have already told you – repeatedly? Your lack of comprehension is, again, a personal problem for you. And, I never said anything about things in peoples’ underwear, pervert.
“Has it always been that way for you? And didn’t anyone tell you that it is rather creepy? Never mind. No need to answer. I don’t want the answer.”
Too bad. I’m answering. You tell me if it’s creepy, Toots. I wouldn’t know because I’m not a degenerate like you are. You are the one injecting sexuality into this, not me. That speaks to your own repressive view of sexuality. Again, personal problem.
“The conclusion can now be drawn: you cannot demonstrate that Obamacare is constitutional.”
I’m not a fan of repetiveness. I think the fine folks here have done an ample job of beating you over your cavernous head with your own psychotic-babblings. Sorry, Taliban, I simply cannot kick a person when they are down.
“I will not ask you questions that apply to anything outside your panties; and since I most certainly will not be asking you ANY questions whatsoever about what is in them, no matter how desperately you need to discuss them, you can be sure there will no more questions at all coming your way.”
Tootie, I could really give a shit if you ask me questions or not. 99.9% of the time, your questions aren’t worth answering anyway. Further, you are the one obsessing over panties, degenerate.
“I have shown very well the case for constitutionality and you have magnificently proven your case for undies, butts, and asses.”
If the nonsense you spew is your “proof”, it’s a good goddamned thing you’re not an attorney, Taliban.
“Surely someone, somewhere, must be proud of you.”
My whole family’s proud of me, as I am of them. Thanks for noticing, Tootie bin Laden.
SL,
Hey! What’s wrong with obsessing over panties! You’re going to deprive AY of one of his favorite hobbies. I mean calling out a zealot is one thing, but calling out a traditional and very common, cross-cultural and cross-class male hobby is something else altogether.
Stam:
You are very interested in me, which is why you following me around like a lost puppy.
Buckeye:
Do you have an example of what “civil rights laws” (connected to the Commerce Clause) would be rolled back if SCOTUS upholds yesterday’s decision?
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Buddha,
I do see the corporate protectionism within the scheme, but the constitutional issue is what pisses me off more.
Why is it that the liberals are just as willing to use the constitution as a urinal puck as the right wingers to get what they want?
Health care reform is a necessity and could be done legally by rehabilitating medicare via reduction of waste and fraud and moving towards the single payer option via the tax rolls.
Forcing people to buy something via the commerce clause? That’s just pure horse shit.
During his testimony at a Jan. 26 House Ways & Means Committee hearing on the new healthcare law, Austan Goolsbee squirmed and obfuscated while repeatedly denying an inconvenient truth about Obamacare: the law contains numerous tax hikes on those making less than $250,000 per year — a violation of President Obama’s central campaign promise not to sign into law “any form of tax increase” on these families.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/top-obama-advisor-lies-health-care-a5809##ixzz1ClD2OqqK
Tootie:”Blacks have more unintended pregnancies than whites and all other groups. What are you going to blame that on if not Christianity? Being black?”
mmmmmm, lack of education?
Lack of access to decent healthcare?
Higher rates of single parent households?
Lower income across the board?
Higher rates of violence and oppression?
…liken that pantie thang???????
Do what Buddha?
Stam:
Oh, one more thing. You said:
“I wouldn’t know because I’m not a degenerate like you are. You are the one injecting sexuality into this, not me. That speaks to your own repressive view of sexuality. Again, personal problem.”
And you said ” I never said anything about things in peoples’ underwear, pervert.”
So now you have called me a pervert and a degenerate. Nice. Real nice. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you could be.
You several times bring into the conversation the obscene comments using intimate body part terms to insult me and then accuse me of injecting sexuality into the discussion and call ME a pervert?
You have a screw loose.
I never suggested you said something sexual. What you did bring into the discussion was obscene terms meant to humiliate me. And now it seems you wish to pretend butt and asses might not be in underwear, and it would be only some degenerate who might think they would be, and it had to be only because I was a pervert that I noticed they were.
Oh, you must have been referring to those Platonic butts and asses that have nothing to do with sexually charged undies! I should have guessed! What was I thinking? Those are the butts that just float around the universe without location, or context, or covering. It was THOSE butts! They must be like those little Cupids that float around the heavens with bows and arrows.
No,it was you, Stam, who brought sexuality into it by telling me I brought it in (when I did not).
And now that you brought up the issue of sexuality, if you continue to use these terms in regard to me then I will consider your aggressive verbal attack, especially the use of the “butt-hurt” term, a form of sexual harassment.
This discussion is not furthered by your using body parts as obscenities to insult me.
Bob,
Copy that.
AY,
Just standing up for the right of every red blooded male who chases panties to do so without being confused with Tootie.
2t: “Those are the butts that just float around the universe without location, or context, or covering. It was THOSE butts! They must be like those little Cupids that float around the heavens with bows and arrows… And now that you brought up the issue of sexuality, if you continue to use these terms in regard to me then I will consider your aggressive verbal attack, especially the use of the “butt-hurt” term, a form of sexual harassment.”
—-
Lol, Get’n all leagal-y ain’t gonna’ cut it. This isn’t a job-site 2T, if you don’t like the language you can complain to the Professor or leave.
Don’t open this if you are offended by “floating butts” (IMO, a thoroughly enchanting concept):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61628540@N00/3734320870
Quit being so mean to tootie and Chan too. I just want to cry when you hurt their feelings.
Woost:
You suggested lack of education. Absolutely.
But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.
Look, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having big families. I don’t care if even leftists have big families. It is Mike who makes a big deal about it in terms of Christians (especially in the south).
Broken families?
When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock. So even if they did have more kids/pregnancies, unexpected or not, those kids had intact families once they arrive. And intact families (especially among the lower classes) are part of the key to prosperity in America. Blacks had a continual rise in economic standing up (and through) to the Great Society period. It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family. That of course has much to do with unwanted pregnancies.
But it was the left that promoted the sexual revolution at the same time we got rid of tough divorce laws for everyone. This played a key role as well.
Fascinating NPR audio interview:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/12/african-american-families
Nice article by Thom Sowell of Stanford:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2000/08/10/blacks_and_bootstraps/page/full/
Lotta:
LOL
“But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.” (Tootie)
====================================================
Oh boy … does anybody else see in that statement what I see?
Then move on to the main paragraph from that post:
“When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock. So even if they did have more kids/pregnancies, unexpected or not, those kids had intact families once they arrive. And intact families (especially among the lower classes) are part of the key to prosperity in America. Blacks had a continual rise in economic standing up (and through) to the Great Society period. It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family. That of course has much to do with unwanted pregnancies.” (Tootie – February 1, 2011 at 10:58 pm)
Holy Toledo!
In the words of Will Rogers: “When ignorance gets started it knows no bounds.”
Blouise,
I think I see what you saw, but I was trying to ignore it. I did not want a certain someone to claim I was playing a certain “card”. Is that what you saw?
“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” – Harlan Ellison
Buddha,
that is a great quote. I have never seen it before.
rafflaw,
Good lord, yes!
Whether or not it was a mistake or intentional the lack of a severability clause, even though it was not required, left the door open for a judge hostile to the law to use that to throw out the entire law. He didn’t HAVE to do that but I think he was within legal precedent to do so.
I do think the mandate is unconstitutional. I also think it’s bad politics to boot. There are many other ways to encourage enrollment. However we should have gone single payer or failing that, we should have included a public option. Constitutional issues disappear.
http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2011/02/health-care-debate-again.html
Shady_Grady: Continuing to allow the insurance companies to have a strangle hold on medical care as the gate-keepers to it is the worst possible way to reform health care IMO and entirely politics-in-action. I too think a single payer system, (Medicare for all) could have been accomplished, funded along the lines of the unemployment insurance program, and gotten rid of any Constitutional conflicts.
Yes LK, that’s the thing. It’s really ironic to see progressives defending a mandate to give money to the insurance companies.
SG, Amazing isn’t it? Institutionalize profit taking for no value added in an industry already exempt from anti-trust laws? Hey, sounds good to me, by all means lets close that deal!
It’s not the first political ‘thing’ I’ve seen that I never thought I’d see. In the last decade or so the line, that line in the sand you don’t think you’ll ever see crossed, has been obliterated; all that’s left are countless footprints going in the direction of the “here be monsters” side. I’m constantly amazed but seldom surprised anymore.
Blouise:
Holy Toledo what? Did I make a factual error about the black family? Or about leftist’s role in destroying it with welfare and sexual revolution (and abortion)?
Tootie:
How thin-skinned you are, perv. Humiliate you? Not only do you humiliate yourself, you make it easy for others to do so but, blame is always better to give then receive. As far as being “interested” in you – don’t flatter yourself. I’m more interested in watching paint dry than you but, I’m hammering on you because I’ve had enough of your bullshit. Why, you ask? Let me explain …
You are of the mindset of “do as I say, not as I do.” It’s okay for you to call those you disagree with murderers, filthy lefist, vomit, vomit, vomit, but you can’t take it when someone calls you for what you are. Well, just cry me a river and drown in it, Tootie bin Laden.
If you consider my calling you a pervert (which you are), a degenerate (which you are), and a member of the American Taliban (which you are) harrassment, I suggest you go through this blog, reread your drivel and see what you have called many here. Jesus H. Christ in a wheelchair, your hypocrisy and ignorance knows no bounds.
Lotta:
You have to have an amendment for such a scheme. But I appreciate that among all these folks you seem to be the only one who is interested in having a Constitutionally authorized health care system.
I believe such a system would still be immoral, but if there was an amendment it would at least be the more honest way to do things, instead of the dishonest way Obama did it.
BIL:
Ha! Far be it from me to deprive members of the male species their cross-cultural, cross-class fantasies!
Panty obsess way!
Hey Tootie:
Are all these “filthy” liberals as stoopid as Buddha?
Stam:
You are making this about me by your personal attacks. I can only concluded that this is because you don’t have what it takes to discuss the issue.
No one, that I could see, on this thread ever provided adequate evidence or support for the claim that Obamacare was Constitutional. It appears you hide behind your assertion that others have supplied ample statements or proofs such that you don’t need to explain your position to me. And what do we get instead? You, using obscenities and insults as a more fruitful line of communication and using what others did not appear to say as the excuse for it.
If Obamacare was justified in Constitution a very bright older child could point out the words without too much trouble. But yet you cannot seem to do it. I am forced to conclude that you don’t know where it is or you already know it is unconstitutional, you don’t care, and have chosen to throw your lot in with lawless usurper, President Obama.
I refrain from attacking people personally, but do respond to attacks on me. And if between the two of us (me a Christian and you presumably not)there was ever any hope of moral improvement about our conduct here at this blog, I doubt that it will ever come from you as you continue to attack me.
It is unlikely that you even have a moral code that might help you reform yourself. At least I do. I’m not saying I’m living up to it, I’m just saying I have something to shoot for.
I’ve gone over my posts and didn’t see where I started attacking you. Perhaps I missed it. It appears you started the personal attacks. You certainly lowered yourself to obscenities, I pointed them out, and now you lash out at me for having called you out on it. You continue with your vicious personal attack on me and then have the nerve to insinuate that I’m the bad guy.
That is not rational. It is not logical. But it is typical of the mindset of evil doers who attack others for being evil doers, but don’t think they are the bad guy. This ends at murder. I’m not saying you are a murderer. I’m saying that the pose that one takes of being innocent when they are not is a pose if taken to it greatest length and extremes ends in murder. For example. Stalin. Or a more recent example, Hosni Mubarak. He commits grave evil thinking he is stopping evil. This mindset begins with the attitude that he is not evil and others are. The recent shooter of the congressman and murderer of the judge probably did not consider himself evil, but he is. This deception about evil others as opposed to our non-evil selves is what causes a good deal of human conflict.
In my world view everyone is evil. And there is evidence from the Bible and from nature.
Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21
…and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.
You do not have to teach toddlers to lie, steal, or assault others. They do it naturally from birth. Well, you say, that is because their brains are undeveloped. Exactly. As the human is born naturally he is born with the corrupt nature when it could have been that he was born with the better nature. But he isn’t. He must be trained OUT of his true nature.
Let’s say we are both equally evil. Let me be generous to you and say I’m more evil (I’m sure you agree with that). What hope is there that either one of us will reform? I have much hope and much example for myself (even if you deny I do). Christ being the main hope for me and also a history of many Christians reforming themselves and doing good.
What do you have to refrom yourself? Nothing that I can see.
Especially if you continue your vicious personal attacks on me.
Action:
Buddha who?
I don’t read Buddha. Does that help?
Taliban Tootie:
Good dog, you are one obnoxious mofo.
You can post your long, boring biblical fantasies all over the goddamned place, I’m not reading.
You can post your long, boring and incoherent psycho-babble regarding the Constitution all over the goddamned place, I’m not reading.
You can post why you think the ACA is unconstitutional until your fingers bleed, I am not reading. Why? Because you have been slapped upside your empty skull – repeatedely – that you’re “logic” is wrong.
Jesus f**king Christ, Taliban Tootie, put your stalking to f**king REST.
Awww.
I’m ignored by the ignorant, but clearly not by the propagandists propping up the ignorant.
I’m just so . . . indifferent and not surprised.
Exodus Ch 8, 1-4
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy [hearts]:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and [and shall play benefit concerts for the oppressed...]
Bob, Esq.,
lol
If they really cared about ordinary people they would not repeal the whole bill. The provision saying that nobody can be denied health insurance based on a pre-existing condition is clearly beneficial to the American people. There are so many patients diagnosed with breast or prostate cancer for whom the repeal of this particular provision would be a complete disaster.
“In my world view everyone is evil. And there is evidence from the Bible and from nature.
Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Tootie,
You have been so active with your misanthropy that I hardly know where to begin, so let’s start with your above 3 quotes from the Torah in Genesis. Jews wrote the Torah, not Christians. Jews do not believe in original sin. Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race. Some Christians do believe in that inherent evil. Jesus certainly didn’t if the Gospels are proof of his teachings. So where did this come from?
When Constantine became emperor of Rome he needed the help of the Legion’s (Roman Army)fast growing Christian sect. He called the Council of Nicaea (c.320 CE)to put together a Christian canon. Many of the Bishops he relied on, because they were loyal to him, were actually Gnostics. Gnostics do believe that humanity is evil, but there is no evidence that Jesus was a Gnostic, or believed such. There’s much more to the story, but its’ up to you to inform yourself, or to remain ignorant of your faith. I just wish that you’d get it right, rather than quoting that which you know nothing about, except what some Preacher taught you in Sunday School. I am not evil and I reject your belief than humankind is essentially evil.
The biggest problem with that evil formulation is that it lets people off the hook for the evil they do. It also can lead to a nihilistic attitude because if everything is evil, what does it matter? From that comes the conception of Hell and thus the teaching that you must give your heart to Jesus to avoid it and have your sins absolved. It also leads to another pernicious thread and that is if the world is evil, that we can wreak any havoc we want on its ecology. By the way Constantine supposedly only accepted Jesus on his death bed, after a lifetime of murderous and autocratic rule and what do you know he became a Saint.
“But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.” (Tootie)
There is no where in my posts where I specifically said that when Christians have a lack of education they are evil. When ignorant and bigoted Christians, such as yourself, make statements about things they’ve never explored beyond listening to sources they already agreed with, then in my opinion they are ignorant. As I previously posted, obviously too long ago for you
to remember, ignorance has nothing to do with education. Given that, I can only infer that you are calling me anti-Christian, which is not the case. I am anti-bigotry and hatred for people of color, held by people like yourself who wrap yourself in a cloak of piety as an excuse for your bigotry.
“When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock”
Your implication that LBJ’s Great Society helped destroy the black family structure. That is not only untrue but it is unfair.
The Southerners who held slaves attempted to destroy the Black family. However, they weren’t able to do so because unlike the stereotypes of your White Supremacist heroes, black families and Black culture remained strong. What hurt it, was denying Black men jobs, making aid to families contingent upon the man not being in the household, the distribution of drugs to the black communities and the continuing racism in US society.
That is really besides the point though and is your way of avoiding the point I was really making, which was that among the supposedly most pious parts of the nation, the Bible Belt, STD’s and unwanted pregnancies among Christian fundamentalists is skyrocketing. Now I know it might tax your memory again, but that was written in response to your claiming liberalism was ruining the country by behaving immorally.
“It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family.”
The Welfare System which began in the 1930′s, not 1960′s, had then and has now more whites on it then any other group of people. Were all of their families destroyed?
“But it was the left that promoted the sexual revolution at the same time we got rid of tough divorce laws for everyone.”
The highest rates of divorce in the country exists in the so-called “Red (conservative)States.” The lowest divorce rates are in the so-called “Blue (liberal) States.”
“So now you have called me a pervert and a degenerate. Nice. Real nice. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you could be.”
Tootie. Really? I mean really? Look back at all the nasty things you’ve said about “libs,” to use your term. Did you think because you were slandering a group, not a particular individual, that somehow you weren’t making highly personal attacks? The problem with people like yourself is that you can
attack in any vicious way you choose, but cry foul when you are attacked in turn.
“Christians, as you ought to know, tend to understand they are responsible for their own children.”
Having worked for 11 years in the field of child welfare and in the location of husbands not paying support, I can tell you that the same percentage of Christians do not feel/act responsibly to their children as does any other group.
“Blood? Blood! On whose hands? You don’t fool me or Jehovah.”
While I don’t believe in an afterlife, heaven or hell, I’m do know that if their is one I’ve got a lot better chance to get to heaven than do you and your bigoted friends. Now Tootie, I’ve really tried to engage in a reasonable discussion with you, but unfortunately it has only revealed more and more of your true self, which is that of an ignorant bigot. since you appear to have a short memory about what is written by people let me again reiterate. Being ignorant has nothing to do with education or social status, it has to do with having a mind that is receptive to mulling over ideas that might not fit in with one’s own belief. You are ignorant because you’ve shown yourself unable to do that and because bigotry drips from most of your writing.
Tootie
1, February 2, 2011 at 7:35 am
Blouise:
Holy Toledo what? Did I make a factual error about the black family? Or about leftist’s role in destroying it with welfare and sexual revolution (and abortion)?
==================================================
Yes, several, but Mike S in his post today at 5:35p pointed out most of them.
Having met some real bigots in my day and carrying the physical scares a few of them inflicted on my body, I am careful how loosely I throw the word around but Tootie, that Holy Toledo was most sincere for I was truly appalled at the things you wrote in that post.
I have no idea if you honestly believe the thoughts you write on this blog or if you are just messin’ with the folk but it doesn’t really matter because irregardless of the motivation, you are beyond the pale.
“It’s really ironic to see progressives defending a mandate to give money to the insurance companies.”
I know but seems more reasonable, after years of petitioning and pushing for single payer , in light of the oppositions desire to scorch and torch, to get SOMETHING on the books with the hopes that it can be modified to better those in need. My understanding (tell me if you disagree) is that if we have a reversal then it will be years (and a hugely dispirited population) before the topic is even broached again….
Tootie
@Buckeye:
Do you have an example of what “civil rights laws” (connected to the Commerce Clause) would be rolled back if SCOTUS upholds yesterday’s decision?
—————————————
All of them would be in danger of negation. It’s like saying all people would have to be discriminated against in employment for the civil rights law against discriminaiton in employment to be constitutional.
From TPMDC (2/2/2011)
Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/reagan-solicitor-general-says-health-care-is-constitutional.php?ref=fpb
Excerpt:
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried said that even though he believes that there are lots of problems with the Affordable Care Act, he’s “quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.”
Fried, now a Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, told the committee in his opening statement that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate, which is precisely what the law signed by President Barack Obama does.
“To my mind, that is the end of the story,” Fried said. “The mandate is a rule. More accurately, it is part of the system of rules by which commerce is to be governed.”
“The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against — the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much,” Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Tootie wrote:
What an excellent argument, though your conclusion is self-evidently incorrect.
Merchant seamen were not in the navy. They were, however, a vital resource that could be used to crew a navy, so as you said, it was creditable of Congress to provide for their health and welfare.
But what about the military, in particular, the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the 2nd amendment that is “necessary to the security of a free State”?
What is the militia?
US vs Miller defines it:
In this day and age, it includes females too.
Thus all able-bodied adults in the USA are inactive militia, either in the military, or, like merchant seamen, potentially so.
There is therefore an equally valid argument that in this day and age, all able-bodied adults are similarly situated to merchant seamen in the 18th century.
So how do we ensure a continuing supply of able-bodied adults, so necessary to the security of a free state? By ensuring they are able-bodied, that is, providing health services in some way. But what happens in 10 years, or 20? To ensure we have able-bodied adults, we must have able-bodied children.
This is an impeachable argument, as it is one step removed, yet it is no great stretch to say that if the state has a compelling interest in the health and welfare of merchant seamen as potential members of the navy, and thus a similar interest in the health of all adults as potential members of the militia, then it also has an interest in the health of children who will in the future become potential members of the militia.
Even Reagan’s Solicitor General agrees that the Act is constitutional.
Charles Fried’s testimony:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-02-02%20Fried%20Testimony.pdf
The Senate failed to pass the repeal bill today, so that grandstanding effort is dead.
The Senate did pass a repeal of a burdensome 1099 requirement.
I repeat, it is better to address these problems by the political process that by judicial fiat.
Vince,
I saw that article about Prof. Fried. It is amazing that Reagan’s solicitor General admits Obamacare is constitutional, but we have a District Judge using Tony Perkin’s amicus brief language to decide it is unconsitutional. Crazy.
Thanks for the update on the Senate vote. I will have to look up what the final tally was.
Zoe Brain:
The Merchant Marines were considered part of the military during time of war. So your premise is incorrect. But I’ll play along with your insane and wicked proposal.
You would have to prove, and there would have to be evidence, that without lifelong government health care a military could not be properly fielded and the federal government would collapse. This would be the only reason for government intervention.
But never in the history of this nation has it ever been true, even when the life expectancy of Americans was 45 years of age, that we could not adequately provide a military because children did not have health or health care. Even so, such an unbelievable state of affairs would only be temporary and not require a perpetual system of cradle to grave Marxist health care.
Your proposal is merely a scheme to justify thievery and totalitarian government (e.g. criminal activity).
The healthiest people, generally, in any civilization are the very age group who march off to war. This is another fact that makes your argument ludicrous. We don’t let babies go to war (though I think you would) and we don’t put old ladies on the front line (though I think you would). We put people in their prime on the front line and these people automatically have the best health even in bad times. Nature makes sure these people (of reproductive age) are the strongest.
Only an imbecile thinks we don’t have enough healthy people to fill the ranks of the US military this very day or anytime in the near future. We have too many soldiers at this time. In fact, if we tried to bring them all home right now it would trouble the unemployment situation. All staffing quotas are now satisfactory.
What you are actually suggesting is slavery and subjugation to the state over personal choice and personal freedom.
Indeed, if you want to do a bang-up job of making little children healthy cannon fodder some day, you are going to have to advocate that government should control everything about their lives or you cannot be taken seriously.
No doubt everything that might impact their health and suitability to serve as cannon fodder to save your sorry self would be relevant: from the things they read (they need to be taught to die for you), the games they play (the more aggressive the better, especially the girls who better not get away with prissy stuff like tea parties), the songs they sing (like with the Hitler youth), and the foods they eat.
Of course, the numbers of hours they sleep and the kinds of exercise they get is extremely important and if the government doesn’t control this carefully all could be lost. You cannot be too careful you know; the state has to survive and other peoples little cannon-fodders-to-be need to be in perfect shape!
That is really what you propose and if you are serious, nothing can be overlooked.
You are suggesting that the health of children is primarily not for their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but to save your hide and to save the state.
Yours is not an idea suitable to a free people. It is suitable for an evil people who have no respect for human life.
With access to cheap medicines at Wal Mart ($4 at Walmart),and access to affordable preventive care, the poor in America have MORE miraculous everyday medical treatments and procedures available to them any time of the day or night than the richest members of the founding generation ever had access to. Poor children today are already ahead of most generations of Americans in the past with health care and these past generations had an adequate ability to supply the military with warm bodies.
If the founders believed that healthy individuals could not be found because parents were imbeciles and neglect their children (as you suggest) they would have taken the responsibilities of child rearing away from their parents (as you suggest).
You are a freak and a fascist. America is about a free people, not a “free state”. North Korea is a free state. Free to starve its people to death and torture them along the way. And free to shuffle citizens around like cattle, pawns, and cannon fodder. The kind of place you would like.
James Madison said:
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”
That would be YOU.
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
That would be YOU.
“Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations”
That would be YOU.
“Children are not a resource, metaphorically or otherwise. Children are growing, maturing people, dependent upon their elders for moral, spiritual, ethical, and practical guidance. They are not something to be shaped, fabricated, or spent in the manufacturing, production, or political process.” Earl Zarbin
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/our-most-precious-resource/
“Chauvinistic indoctrination becomes a useful tool of the state in wartime, as when President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to build support for American participation in World War I and to blunt opposition by constituencies with European roots. The nation’s high schools were prime propaganda targets and received hundreds of thousands of copies of a CPI-produced pamphlet designed to stir anti-German sentiment. “Germany does not really wage war,” the pamphlet stated.
“She assassinates, massacres, poisons, tortures, intrigues; she commits every crime in the calendar, such as arson, pillage, murder, and rape.” Joel Spring commented, “From the standpoint of the public schools, [the CPI] was the first major attempt to bring the goals of locally controlled schools into line with the policy objectives of the federal government.” Daniel Hager
And then he sent them off to be cannon fodder in the bloody cruel trenches of Europe for no good reason.
Tootie
1, February 2, 2011 at 7:38 am
Lotta:
You have to have an amendment for such a scheme. But I appreciate that among all these folks you seem to be the only one who is interested in having a Constitutionally authorized health care system.
==========
Ummmm, no you don’t. Levy a tax and spend it on X. Article 1 section 8 as I recall. Think “The Social Security Act”.
Tootsie – “freak” I’ll plead guilty to. “Fascist”, not as such.
As for the rest, please have a look at “Straw Man Arguments” and “Ad Hominem”.
As for “no good reason” – see the “Zimmerman Telegram” et al.
Tootie, I have no conclusion left to me other than that you are mentally ill and not properly medicated.
You decry the “attacks” Stamford Yankee/Liberal makes against you but ignore your ubiquitous, casually delivered, unrestrained attacks on others. And a general and entertaining rationale’ for expanded, government funded health care from Zoe Brain which was not in any way rude to you, was answered with a string of insults to her culminating in “You are a freak and a fascist.” And that was shortly after Mike S. pointed out your lack of manners.
Your behavior is out of control. The quality of your postings and behaviour has degenerated over the many months you have been visiting here. You are no longer fit for a normal discussion.
If you deal with people in 3D in the same manner as you do here then I strongly suggest you seek assistance with the internal rage and conflict that has begun to drive your interactons. They are no longer healthy in any accepted sense.
If you only behave this way here then you can expect little except similar abuse from those others that will interact with you. You invite abuse, that is not healthy.
Lottakatz – thanks for reminding me.
I’m Intersexed. It’s quite normal for me to get far, far worse than anything Tootie has said. I forget sometimes that this is not the norm.
Zoe, There isn’t a minority 2T hasn’t insulted lately but damn, I was appalled at that. I apologize for that and that’s not the way people behave on Turleyblawg. Maybe I’m wrong and ‘freak’ was just a word that was convenient but you just don’t know with 2T any more. Anything might just tumble out of her mouth.
I liked your rationale regarding the Merchant Seaman Act BTW, not a snowballs chance, but very creative. I’d vote for it.
Lottakatz – “freak” I don’t mind. Objectively, it’s accurate. It’s thought that only one person in 10,000,000 changes apparent sex from male to female. That was only one of the symptoms, by the way, my whole cholesterol metabolism is just plain odd. Enough so there was serious debate as to whether I am H.Sap or not.
Tootie’s a pussy-cat.
For example, some comments on a RadFem Lesbian site, regarding the Transgender Day of Remembrance, where we remember those shot, stabbed, strangled, beaten, stoned, gutted, flayed, disembowelled etc etc for being TS, IS, or TG. Or perceived to be. Or being seen in the company with someone who is perceived to be.
About some medical advances that might allow Intersexed and even some trans women to bear children:
That’s from the Radical Feminist Left.
From the Religious Right… let’s see, so many to choose from.. how about the well-funded political group, MassResistance, probably best known for their campaigns of harassment against Trans children under 10:
I’m sorry, and I really don’t mean to be disrespectful of Tootie – but since I get that kind of stuff all the time, those feeble attacks just gave me a fit of the giggles.
Zoe Brain…..Damn!
I had never heard the term ‘Intersexed’ before but I followed the hovercraft to your site and the article on it was excellent. I did a paper on the transexual experience in college many many years ago,… I can’t for the life of me understand how people can recognize the amazing science of discovery and yet still discount the movement of the stars……
Mike Spindell
You said
“Jews wrote the Torah, not Christians.”
And so what? Who believes the Torah? You or me?
ME.
“Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.”
Maybe that should read: Jews who disbelieve God’s statements in Genesis 6 and 8 do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.
It’s so inherent that God regretted making the human race on earth at all. God says:
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Genesis 6:6)
The whole thing down here on planet earth almost ended except for 8 people. Only 8! We have about 7 billion people on the planet now. Once there were only 8 (after God zapped the rest).
You don’t think there is something extremely wrong with the human race when God nearly cut it off here from continuing?
“Jesus certainly didn’t [believe in inherent evil] if the Gospels are proof of his teachings. So where did this come from?”
It comes from scripture. The OT and the Gospels. For example, the Gospel of John:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 (the Gospel of John)
Who is perishing? The inherently good?
In Luke we read:
“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Luke 11:13)
The Greek in this portion of scripture goes like this:
“The Greek expression πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες (poneroi hyparchontes). Now poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature or condition.” But it is also defined as “full of labors, annoyances, hardships.” And hyparchontes is translated as “from the very beginning” or “being inherently.” (The Archdiocese of Washington Blog)
That, among other evidences, is where such an idea comes from. And whether it would be true or not for you, this inherent evil can be suppressed (the virtuous godless prove it).
Jesus was a Jew. And he disagrees with you.
I should think the Jew would be he or she who claims that the Torah is true in all things rather than the Jew (like you) who fictionalizes the Torah away into oblivion.
What have you to be jealous of with these Jews who believe God as King David believed, anyway? You’ve left nothing of God to be greatly desired except for the purposes of a super-duper rabbit’s foot.
Since non-Jews can be as good as you without your version of God then all you have over them IS the rabbit’s foot. Even so, a good many evil people have prospered more than you ever will.
So, even your rabbit’s foot isn’t all that special.
And by the way, one cannot be a Jew unless one converts. So any evil intent you lay at the feet of Christians regarding the idea of converting is really beyond the pale. I could be a Jew if I converted to one and I don’t attach some diabolical intent to Jews because of it. In fact, I don’t attach to them some diabolical intent.
And it was the Jews who had secreted away the Old Testament scriptures beyond the Torah in the Jewish Temple. The Christians and Constantine had nothing to do with squirreling away those scrolls. The Hebrew scriptures as they were found (and then transliterated) were kept by the JEWS in the 2nd Temple of Solomon.
And when did I say anything about “original sin”? If I did, erred. I say all men are sinners, I don’t talk about original sin. I talk about the beginning of sin entering into the world but I don’t talk about a specific doctrine called Original Sin.
Even the OT scriptures says
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5
Which Christian are you going to blame that on? Wasn’t it a Jew who collected the Psalms?
It’s the Catholics who claim Original Sin doctrine, not me. I’m a baptist. We don’t believe that. Original sin led to infant baptism and as you will recall disagreeing with that proposal led to the persecution of baptists by the Catholic church. And infant baptism also played a key role in igniting the Protestant Reformation, which the Catholic church though ought to be a bloody affair.
Speaking of baptists. There was John. John the Baptist. This is a very old line indeed. Oh. And he was a Jew, even if you won’t allow it.
If I have only two people to believe in this world, the Jew Jesus Christ or the Jew Mike Spindell, it isn’t going to be you. You offer me NOTHING. Nothing but uncertainty in life and then death. Kaput. Darkness. Emptiness. In addition you offer a most horrific spectacle: you offer injustice for all the innocent children of the world who suffered and died and knew only misery and saw no perpetrator punished.
The Jew, Jesus Christ, offers me everything. Including justice for those who suffered and did not receive an accounting for it while on earth, including the victims of the Holocaust. According to your vision they will receive no justice, or at the least, might not.
What an ugly thought. To me it is illogical.
You write: “Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.”
What you probably mean to say is: “A lot of Jews IGNORE the word of God (Torah) and make up junk about what it means because they cannot tolerate what the words really mean and are embarrassed about things in the Torah like stoning people to death, slavery, prohibitions against masturbation, and slaughtering animals for animal sacrifice as part of ones relationship with Jehovah and atonement for sins.”
I reckon it explains why many Jews fictionalize the scriptures away to oblivion.
Well, I’m not ashamed of God. And I take his word at face value (unless it does not make sense to do so). And if you cut God off in the middle of his lecture to mankind by ignoring the remaining Hebrew writings you will never understand what is literal or figurative and that probably explains why your god is akin to a glorified rabbit’s foot.
You wrote “It also leads to another pernicious thread and that is if the world is evil, that we can wreak any havoc we want on its ecology.”
That notion is widespread pop-culture baloney perpetuated by bigoted Christophobes. The Bible (the 66 book variety) teaches stewardship of the earth, not defilement. In the end (according to Christian scripture) God also punishes mankind for destroying the earth. The meaning of destroy in the verse I refer to means: to corrupt it, defile it, or change it for the worse. God punishes mankind for hurting the earth physically. And even though you do not believe this, this is what the NT scriptures have taught for 2,000 years. And the Christophobes will be running the place at that time when mankind is to be called to an accounting for it (when they are not beheading Christians, of course).
Perhaps you are the type who thinks all white people are Christians and any time a white person does something evil, they must be a Christian. I run into this a lot. But just because white people polluted things over the decades doesn’t mean they were all Christians.
And the biggest polluters around the planet these days are the godless communists in Russia and China: you know, those friends of the leftists in America. And their trashing of the planet has nothing to do with their belief in Original sin or innate evil.
You write: “There is no where in my posts where I specifically said that when Christians have a lack of education they are evil.”
You just imply it. Like here:
“They have no idea what sex is about and the men think it’s all about them. Their idea of womanhood is to keep them barefoot, pregnant, but also working and doing the chores. It’s an evil, hateful cycle perpetrated by people who falsely believe they know anything about morality.”
If they falsely believe something then they are not educated. And because they are not educated they are committing this evil thing. You have no compassion for them. Period. It is clear you despise them.
You and I both know the numbers we are looking at here are high in the locations you are talking about especially because of the high percentage of blacks in the states you are referring to. I have noted this several times and you have evaded it completely. I’ve provided you with solid information and data (with hyperlinks) about WHO has the highest unwed motherhood stats and so forth and you have provided me with nothing but to say I’ve got my info wrong.
You only focus on Christians and you never mention black’s substantial contribution to the numbers we are talking about.
Perhaps people ARE AFRAID TO DISCUSS THIS OPENLY because people like yourself have over the past 25 years have turned any honest discussion about human behavior in racial terms into a racist act. It appears you have driven yourself into an intellectual dead end. And, it doesn’t help blacks or whites to do so. I even provided information from a black scholar who isn’t afraid to talk about these things. Your side has poisoned the debate and discourages frankness.
If you don’t hesitate to mention religion, why do you hesitate to mention race as if it didn’t matter? And if you don’t think it is a big deal to mention religion, let me put it this way. If I was really a Taliban member (as many here allege I am) no one, not even you, would say the things you say to me because you would fear for your lief. You wouldn’t have the guts to say the things to a Taliban member that you have said to me here, if you are posting under your real name. This is because you, and those who smear me with the label of Taliban, smear me with complete confidence that I pose no threat or danger to you.
You are all a bunch of cowards!
You say what you say about Christians while ignoring the other factors, because are the bigot. Instead of talking about a key factor in these problems you dwell on religious people (specifically Christians) because you detest them. YOU brought up the Bible belt and you were not referring to the Jewish garment industry.
You said:
“The highest rate of unwanted children being born is in the South and particularly the Bible Belt.”
This was your main response to the problem. CHRISTIANITY. When, in fact race appears to be a strong contributor. Especially since many of the states considered blue have high concentrations of Catholics. Like Massachusetts for example. You automatically brag about how smart they all are and never even mention that the religion there might have an impact. Only the religion in the south has the impact.
My point is you refused to mention race even though it is foolish to discuss the subject without mentioning it because of the huge statistical difference between the various groups. (Asians having a high rate of marriage and little divorce). You have steered so far around it that you are now on the other side of the universe. You have already stated that the Christians were uneducated or poor so they would be in the same boat with the blacks in that regard. And since there are no whites folks standing around forbidding blacks to marry or have babies within wedlock you inadvertently left yourself with NOTHING to explain this problem but your myopic Christophobia.
And, in what appears to be a last ditch effort to get yourself out of this mess, you come up with this silly thing:
“The highest rates of divorce in the country exists in the so-called “Red (conservative)States.” The lowest divorce rates are in the so-called “Blue (liberal) States.”
Yes, I know about this dubious statistic. But this information is deceiving. The government could probably not get the real numbers because people move in and out of a state and cannot be tracked for as long a period as would be necessary. They didn’t track every marriage and see if each particular marriage ended in divorce. People often marry in one state divorce in another. They can marry in a college town and divorce back home. They may cohabit more and so don’t marry in the first place. The stats taken are the stats of the divorce rate for a STATE POPULATION instead of a divorce RATE PER EACH MARRIAGE. This is why these numbers cannot give us enough information.
If you want to compare what goes on between liberal blue-state areas of the USA to elsewhere, look at what has gone on in Scandinavia. It is more liberal, more leftist, and has a higher percentage of the population with college degrees (in comparison to the USA). It is also very white (like Vermont for example). Scandinavia’s population also has an overall higher IQ than the USA. It’s lefty nirvana and virtually atheist.
The numbers of divorce continued to rise in Scandinavia for years after relaxing the marriage laws. Then, co-habitation became more customary and less “official” marriages were put on the books AS DID THE STATS ON DIVORCE (since people were simply not getting married). These pseudo marriages also break up but cannot be counted like official divorce because they were more informal legally. Then homosexual marriage became law about 20 years ago or so and marriage, as it once was, is nearly virtually dead in Scandinavia.
This is the likely future of the leftist marriage anywhere in the world. But it is likely that the people who are holding back America from the Scandinavian situation are the people you especially detest: Christians. They appear to be stabilizing the downward trend. This is just a guess, but it is a logical one. Again, the New Testament clearly teaches that a man and woman are to be husband and wife. They are to get married. And even in the Jewish tradition, that was a momentous event delineated and legitimized formally by the couple, religious leaders, the community, and even the state.
So for a Christian to violate this clear command to become more than two people living together, points towards to these persons NOT being Christians by virtue of what they are doing. Marriage is a most serious matter.
Since many of the blue states with lower divorce rates have high catholic populations you are likely bragging about THEIR achievements or influences on the numbers.
These maps of catholic states and blue states are very similar.
http://www.adherents.com/maps/map_us_romcath.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_state,_blue_state.svg
You wrote:
“Having worked for 11 years in the field of child welfare and in the location of husbands not paying support, I can tell you that the same percentage of Christians do not feel/act responsibly to their children as does any other group.”
Again, perhaps you associate most white people in the south as being a Christian. Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their offspring is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM. The New Testament states it this way:
“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (NASB) 1 Timothy 5:8
Clear as a bell: DENIED THE FAITH.
In other words, according to Christianity such a parent as you describe as being a Christian, is NOT a Christian.
But I guess after so many years of believing you get to define what a Jew is (instead of letting the Hebrew scriptures define it) you feel yourself an expert at defining what a Christian is as well despite what the Christian scriptures define it as.
Stam:
The reason you call me a Taliban is because you know I am not dangerous. If I were the Taliban and you gave me your real name, you could not sleep at night.
This proves your characterization of me is stupid.
A faux Christian telling a Jew how to be a Jew. That’s just hysterically funny. Speaking of which . . .
Did I mention is was hysterically stupid as well?
Yeah.
Tootie,
Were one to pick and choose particu;ar passages from the Torah and from the Gospels, then anything can be justified. This is what you and those who believe as you do. It’s known as missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of prophetic teaching and developing a moral sense in society is to allow people to see an entire picture. Abraham is considered by Jews to be one of our patriarchs and yet his story is one of a highly imperfect man. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps its because the Torah was meant to be read and discussed and argued over, in order that individuals might use their intelligence to reach for what to them is truth. Jesus taught in parables, whose meanings were not readily apparent. I imagine he did that to get his followers to think for themselves. The ignorant, however, refuse to look beyond the obvious and in that process pirate these teachings for their own egotism. If you really believe that Jesus today would be the kind of racist conservative you follow slavishly, you’ve sadly missed your saviors boat and become a tool for those who use his name to perpetrate evil rather than good.
Bingo!
“Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their offspring is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM.”
I would paraphrase your statement:
“Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their fellow human beings is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM.”
That is known to Christians as the “Golden Rule.” However, you and your white supremacist brethren actually follow a different “Golden Rule.” That one is “Do unto others…first!”
Buddha,
That’s one of my favorite Lewis Black comedy routines. Did you see Black a few nights ago on The Daily Show? The segment was called Back in Black: Meat Edition. He talked about Taco Bell.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-1-2011/back-in-black—meat-edition
I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again, arguing theology only works if you’re all playing the same edition of D&D.
Elaine,
“A Duraflame log is 42% beef!”
lol
Thanks, Elaine. I had missed that one. I really do love Lewis.
Gyges,
Some things simply bear repeating.
This is not to be confused with a simply repeating bear.
(Insert your own bear fart joke here.)
“Well, I’m not ashamed of God. And I take his word at face value (unless it does not make sense to do so).”(Tootie)
ROTFLOL
“The highest rates of divorce in the country exists in the so-called “Red (conservative)States.” The lowest divorce rates are in the so-called “Blue (liberal) States.” (Mike S.’s assertion)
Yes, I know about this dubious statistic. But this information is deceiving. The government could probably not get the real numbers because people move in and out of a state and cannot be tracked for as long a period as would be necessary.” (Tootie’s response)
=================================================
People moving in and out of states …… I am laughing so hard my sides are hurting.
I’m fairly new to this site (1 year) and am wondering what the general rules are about how many insults per comment is the limit before a poster will be banned.
I was told at first that name calling was frowned upon and excessive insults would not be tolerated. I’ve not found that to be true and am curious about who is monitoring the site, if anyone.
I can’t think the site will continue to be in the top 100 if this continues. Just sayin’
Buckeye,
Rule One: JT makes the rules.
Rule Two: See Rule One.
Lottakatz:
“Tootie, I have no conclusion left to me other than that you are mentally ill and not properly medicated.”
Nice. Real nice.
“You decry the “attacks” Stamford Yankee/Liberal makes against you but ignore your ubiquitous, casually delivered, unrestrained attacks on others.”
Stamford called me a pervert. I suppose that doesn’t warrant a charge of mental problems by YOU even though Stam was getting to the point where he could not converse with me without using terms referring to his or my body parts. I suppose in your world that is normal. Fine. Go for it.
“And a general and entertaining rationale’ for expanded, government funded health care from Zoe Brain which was not in any way rude to you, was answered with a string of insults to her culminating in “You are a freak and a fascist.”
Have you EVER heard in your life that it is true (let alone true because it was proven) that Americans are so profoundly unhealthy (or could be in the near future) that unless they get cradle to grave health care in perpetuity the country will not survive?
And you say I’m the one with questionable mental issues? Zoe’s argument is the epitome of mental confusion if ever there was one.
Look it up, a freak is merely an usual person. If Zoe isn’t unusual in trying to argue that nonsense, then I don’t know who is. I’ve never heard of such a bizarre argument about health care and why the government should control it. And that is all I referred to. I used a completely accurate term. On the other hand Stam calling me a pervert. And not only is it not accurate, it is a lie, and a true insult.
And what Zoe has in mind can only occur with a fascist form of government. There are lots of opinions about what fascism is and I don’t think I need anyone’s permission to choose from which definitions I might use. I think Robert O. Paxton’s opinion of fascism fits in neatly with Zoe’s argument:
Fascism:
“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
We are not healthy enough and face utter ruin if we do not abandon our freedom to control our health care decisions to the government? And this will not be achieved but by gunpoint in collaboration with industry leaders? And no one is to escape from this scheme (unless they cheat and get a waiver from Obama? And, of course, the purpose isn’t to DEFEND America, it is to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations overseas?
I’m sorry. I don’t see my being so off on this about the charge of fascism. And since Obamacare is already in place and of late we are getting some lame justifications for why it might be constitutional, I don’t see that there is any less reason for real and genuine fear and alarm just because Zoe is so utterly delightful.
All of a sudden, we have people saying unless we receive cradle to grave health care the nation may not survive. This is nuts. That is a mental problem if there is one. The first lady recently made a similar claim.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/michelle-obama-on-child-nutrition-we-can-t-just-leave-it-up-to-the-parents
In that link it says the military is worried kids are too fat to join up. Okay, let’s think this through. It doesn’t take but a short time in the military to trim up fat people. Recruits have easily regulated diets and exercise and it doesn’t take long at all to make them fit. Certainly within the time period of boot camp.
So instead of the military making minor, cheap, simple, and easy adjustments to accommodate our chubby population through proper diet and exercise, some are advocating trillions of dollars be spent, a private industry destroyed, and all citizens be enslaved to state run health care?
I’m the nut?
I wish I could have found a better word than fascism but there was none. And until people hear what it is they are actually advocating they will never see it until it is too late. And if Zoe is going to be in the kitchen she is going to have to sweat or turn on a fan.
“And that was shortly after Mike S. pointed out your lack of manners.”
I plead guilty to bad manners.
I should be more polite.
I’ll remember that.
“Your behavior is out of control. The quality of your postings and behaviour has degenerated over the many months you have been visiting here. You are no longer fit for a normal discussion.”
Then why do people post to me? They are very interested in what I have to say if only to mock and deride it. They could ignore me. Clearly they get something from it. If it is so bad and they cannot help but respond, what does it say about them? And if you think BIL or Stam are fit for normal discussion, then you don’t know what normal is and your opinion about it is not to be believed or considered authoritative or enlightened.
“If you deal with people in 3D in the same manner as you do here then I strongly suggest you seek assistance with the internal rage and conflict that has begun to drive your interactons. They are no longer healthy in any accepted sense.’
If I wasn’t angry about a Marxist totalitarian police-state descending on me viz a viz fascism, viz a viz a French-style Jacobin Revolution, or authoritarianism, or whatever the Democrats can throw to get it to stick to the wall, then I really would be insane, mentally disturbed, and in need of medication.
When should I mind my manners anyway? AFTER the tanks start rolling down my street? Like, next week?
The truth is that if it weren’t for all the polite mannerly scholars and intellectuals here and among us in the seats of power crafting tyranny right before my eyes I wouldn’t need to make a damn fool of myself trying to convince them otherwise. I would be doing what I prefer to do and typing on the internet to evil doers isn’t it.
I dislike having to expose my flaws because those who easily hide their own flit about destroying a civilization. There isn’t much time left either.
“If you only behave this way here then you can expect little except similar abuse from those others that will interact with you. You invite abuse, that is not healthy.”
Oh please. That is absurd. These people started the attacks. They got offended when I referred to large groups of people (they associated themselves with) in unflattering terms, and they took it personally. They were offended by this because they are the type of people who love humanity and brotherhood until someone disagrees with them.
Then watch out. They want you destroyed. They love mankind, but hate Sarah Palin. Those types.
I’m the opposite. I love individuals and cannot stand humanity. I would give the shirt off my back to those in need. And I would do it for Stam, Mike S., and BIL.
BIL and Stam would likely be the types to attack me in the streets if worse came to worse like the Muslims did to Anderson Cooper. Their words suggest to me that they would.
The human race stinks, but I treat individuals with respect in “3D”. Nevertheless the leftists are and always shall be evil monsters and if they would like my opinion of them to change they are simply going to have to stop being evil monsters because my opinion of them is not going to change otherwise.
Nonetheless, will continue to treat them kindly in my daily life.
The reason things are so bad here is that being bad is allowed. And it was allowed before I got here. You just don’t like it that I’m contributing to it. It’s okay for the leftists to do it though.
This has more to do with that people don’t like the truth. Most hate it. Jesus was as kind as a human can be, and they murdered him. This is a very old story and has occurred throughout history. Time and again the sweet people are destroyed. I’m not saying I’m the sweet people. I’m saying the destroyers destroy no matter what: sweet or not.
This is not just about me being an ill-mannered, semi-illiterate snot. It is about well-mannered powerful people and intellectuals being evil and trying to get away clamping chains of slavery on my wrists and the next generations to come while they call me crazy for pointing it out.
Buckeye,
You might be happier if you stick to threads like : Health Care and Federalism: A Response to Professor Charles Fried … there is much being discussed and no real “name-calling”.
Religion is a subject that often invites over-indulgence.
Blouise
Our family has a rule to never discuss religion or politics when certian people are present. I hate to see almost every thread disintigrate when certain people are present because this is such a great site.
Buckeye,
Let’s just say I can think of maybe 3 people who have been banned, and one of those was for pretending to be another poster. Another one was a well known white supremacist who used all the bigoted language you’d expect, plus that word that begins with F and rhymes with uck…
It’s really not a number limit, it’s more of a severity limit, combined how much time JT has to pay attention and how many people have complained sort of thing. JT has a love of free speech and always errs in favor of more rather than less. This actually is pretty far from as bad as I’ve seen it.
However, let me just say I’m probably going to take a week or so off from the blog because quite frankly I’m sick of having a choice of “The Tootie Show,” “The Chan Show,” or “The Brain Show.” To be clear, I think all involved have some responsibility, including myself. My week off is as much to get me to calm down as it is to give everyone else a chance to settle.
JT,
I apologize for any thing I may have said that crossed the line. I’m pretty sure I stayed within the bounds of civility, but I try not to get in food fights in other people’s dinning rooms.
Attack you on the streets, Tootie?
No.
More like point my finger and laugh.
Stam:
The reason you call me a Taliban is because you know I am not dangerous. If I were the Taliban and you gave me your real name, you could not sleep at night.
This proves your characterization of me is stupid.
———————————————————-
Taliban Tootie:
No, the problem with you, Ms. bin Laden, is you ARE dangerous. You are a danger to yourself.
If you want my real name, you are more than welcome to it. Hell, for shits and giggles, I’ll even give you my address. You think I’m afraid of you? LMAO! There isn’t much that scares me. My daughter or my niece predeceasing me scares me. But, to be sure, if harm ever came to my daughter or niece, vengeance would be mine. I can make Sister Sarah’s “mama grizzly” look like something Willow made at a “Build a Bear” workshop. But me scared? No.
Even a militant, irrational and sociopathic Christians like you doesn’t scare me because you and your ilk do not have the courage of your convictions, nor do you have the courage to follow the true messages of your personal lord and savior. You justify your hatred, anger and militant and violent rhetoric by hiding behind a magical book; a book loaded with PAGAN stories that predate your religion by thousands of years.
You want to play, Taliban? – let’s go:
I HEREBY GIVE PERMISSION TO WHOMEVER HAS ACCESS TO MY CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL ADDRESS TO PLEASE PASS IT ON TO TALIBAN TOOTIE.
I look forward to hearing from you, Taliban Tootie.
Gyges
Some are instigators and some lower the tone by responding to them with the same lack of courtesy which makes it a vicious cycle that brings the site down to a really uncomfortable and unproductive level.
But it’s JT’s site and if he is satisfied with the tone, it’s fine with me. Like you, I can go elsewhere as I’d done before I came here.
Gyges, et al,
My critiques of Tootie are not about theology, though I use it to show the irony of her vitriol towards those she perceives as “libs” etc. I even have made attempts to reach out to her on some level, but it seems that only gives her license (in her mind) to make even more outrageous statements.
I say “outrageous” incidentally not because she doesn’t have the right to express her opinions, however, at what point does freedom of expression, unanswered, become license to practice bigotry?
I would never want her right to speak censored, but to allow her to make statements that I deem to be hurtful, malicious and ignorant, without some refutation only gives them credence and equivalence. This equivalence has been what the mainstream media has practiced. It has given a greater voice to movements like the teabaggers and demagogues like Sarah Palin, who polls show have far less adherence than one would expect given media coverage. It has assissted the Republican victory in the House by allowing this beknighted mythology to be accepted as true, without any effort to supply factual information, as the media are so quick to do with ideas and people who could roughly be called progressive.
Polling showed that the teabaggers tended to be more wealthy than the average Americans they were being portrayed as being.
Investigation also revealed that rather than a grass roots movement, teabaggers were funded by elite ultra-rightists like the Koch brothers. Yet media punditry portrayed the movement as it described itself, rather than informing as to who they were.
I agree that diatribes get boring very quickly and that does not help discourse on this blog. However, what is to be done when people like tootie and others monopolize the discussion?
Not only does ignoring them not work, it leaves their mis-statements and bigotry unanswered. We know that JT is a leading advocate of free speech, so banning of people is rightly used sparingly.
As far my use of theological arguments, that is a tactic that I utilize when bearers of bigotry use their purported piety to support their prejudice. Anyone who is familiar with my writing here knows that I’ve never pretended to be pious, but I hold deist beliefs and practice Jewish rituals because that is a comfort to me as meditation. Another part of that though, to bare my soul so to speak, is it puts me in contact in some way with my parents who died in my adolescence. If there is a creative force in the universe, in my judgment that force has no preference for any religion.
Blouise: “People moving in and out of states …… I am laughing so hard my sides are hurting.”
—-
Actually, we need more info to test that hypothesis, we need someone trained in particle physics.
If you have a question about the Old Testament then ask a Jew.
If you have a question about transitions between states then ask a physicist.
(C’mon, stop groaning, it was funny… easy, but funny.)
Gyges: “The Brain Show.”
Do you mean ‘Brian’? Zoe Brain got here so very recently and did a good posting…
Mike S, your voice has been calm, informative, compassionate, and not lost on me, ‘us’ if I may be so bold.
I have thought more than once while reading your postings that if, when I was dealing with the concepts of spirituality and its use as a framework for an ethical life, had I access to someone like you I might have ended up a lapsed Jew instead of a hostile ex-christian.
Mike Spindell,
Falsehoods should be answered, hypocrisy exposed, bigotry condemned.
Perhaps I am just old and hardened and thus not easily shocked by strong words or strongly held opinions. I also take some of what people write here with a grain of salt knowing that emotions can bloom a flower or light a fuse, or both at the same time depending on the mood of the reader. Real free speech isn’t all that easy to handle.
I read your answers to Tootie without a thought for Tootie as your answers are chocked full of insight into Jewish traditions, Christian traditions, historical events, and political science colored with real life experience. This is valuable information that stimulates my thought processes, excites my curiosity, or answers questions I’ve long pondered. That answering a statement from Tootie may have been the cart used to carry the info means nothing to me for the information is the treasure I keep.
I, too, tried with Tootie but he/she didn’t want to play nice … which is okay. Not everybody wants to play with me.
But honestly, this statement from her on this thread in answer to one of your points simply blew me away:
“Well, I’m not ashamed of God. And I take his word at face value (unless it does not make sense to do so).”(Tootie)
No one in their right mind could leave that kind of hypocrisy just sitting out there flappin’ in the breeze.
Lotta,
Notice how we are always up late … we got the whole site to ourselves … let’s toilet paper somebody!
Stamford Liberal,
I like the way you think; I like the way you write; I will stand by your side and fight the … who’s coming to get you again …never mind … they won’t get your name or address out of me … just don’t tell HenMan … he failed Withstanding Torture School
Blouise, TP somebody? Oooooh, a clan-des-tine mission, I’m up for it! Now all we have to do is pick somebody and get there. Oh, wait, darn, I can’t fit into my clandestine-ninja duds any more! Srsly, I can’t go out on a secret mission looking like THIS! Man, I look like I’ve got a built-in backpack (slung way low) in these things… we’ll have to put this off. Between the ice, snow, 9 degree temperature here and this hot-mess of a uniform I’ll just stay at HQ and make some nice hot chocolate for when you return. Hot chocolate, extra whipped cream and a heavy shot of Bailey’s Irish Cream, ummmm, I think I know where the extra weight came from…
Skip the TPing … I’ll come straight to you
Took me 30 minutes to clean the snow/ice off my truck which made me late for my dinner engagement with girl-friends … I am tired of this!
Gotta go to bed
We could just go on every thread and sign in as TPers … naw, it’s too late … really gotta go to bed
Mike S: “However, what is to be done when people like tootie and others monopolize the discussion?
Not only does ignoring them not work, it leaves their misstatements and bigotry unanswered. We know that JT is a leading advocate of free speech, so banning of people is rightly used sparingly.”
———–
Your statement raises the matters that I have been considering. I have been thinking about taking a break from the blawg but really, what does that accomplish? Trolls win. I agree that non-engagement does not always work (with the hit and run sorts that are ubiquitous on the web it does, ignoring them is easy and they lose interest) but engagement only legitimized their pov, in their own minds if no one else’s.
OTOH, to leave their statements unchallenged actually does legitimize their pov. Some response is demanded if only to maintain the spirit of the Blawg.
First Amendment concerns are also why I don’t call for banning. It’s repugnant to our host’s philosophy and it’s a slippery slope, once the worst offenders are gone then does the criteria change and a new crop of ‘worst offender’ get designated? I’ve seen that happen in 3d life and it ends badly. I hesitate to take those first steps.
The question for me ultimately becomes how one loses the battle (while generally winning the argument) but maintain the high ground and, are there subtle distinctions to be made in employing tools to do so? It gets tricky when you see those as your primary options regarding discourse. For me this, then resolves itself into on of form as much as substance and I think that less is more under such circumstances.
A passionless, declarative statement that leaves you on the high ground. Not that rolling around in the mud doesn’t have some satisfying effect, at least to me on occasion. Still, the kind of responses you have made are of the form that preserves the high ground. I don’t have a content quality dissatisfaction with any postings in response to, only form.
A failure of form also has the unintended detriment (IMO) of being able to discourage new posters from coming back if they visit during an acrimonious period. I don’t think anyone wants to see that.
So now SS Gruppenfuhrer Tootie has magically transmogrified herself into Rabbi Tootie? This is too much even for my endlessly elastic imagination. Tootie, you need the services of a good shrink-and I don’t mean one of the Founding Shrinks. Sigmund Freud wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot Torah. I will have to admit that Tootie has put me in touch with her very own personal God. I thank her God every night before I go to bed that I don’t have to dream Tootie’s dreams.
“Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep…”
It is because of some posters, most specifically Tootie and ChanL, that this site has become less and less interesting and useful to me. I enjoy the exchange of both ideas and witticisms, but the constant thread hijacking makes much of this blog unreadable. I have seldom seen people so insistent on flaunting their ignorance. As my old mentor used to say,
“Often wrong, never uncertain.” when referring to such people.
Even when I think I might have something useful to say, I no longer bother because of Tootie and her obsessive and self-righteous rants. She is no more interested in exchanging ideas than I am interested in becoming a circus acrobat. She seems to be functionally incapable of examining ideas from different perspectives.
My guess is that Tootie may have tried to post on other blogs, but many moderated blogs would have banned her a long time ago.
Buckeye: “I’m fairly new to this site (1 year) and am wondering what the general rules are…”
—
Nice try.
My late father-in-law coined a malapropism that I still use and is appropriate in describing the instigator/responder situation you noted above, to whit: running up against a situation that had elements of the cliched ‘vicious cycle’ and ‘snowball effect’ in play he sputtered out “vicious snowball”. Lol. What we have here is a vicious snowball.
One thing I’ve noticed in almost every blawg I’ve posted to is that around election time passions run high, I expect short tempers at that time. We had an election and a high-profile assassination attempt with tragic results. I think those things are in play emotionally also.
“Polling showed that the teabaggers tended to be more wealthy than the average Americans they were being portrayed as being.
Investigation also revealed that rather than a grass roots movement, teabaggers were funded by elite ultra-rightists like the Koch brothers. Yet media punditry portrayed the movement as it described itself, rather than informing as to who they were.”~ Mike Spindell
I KNEW it! Mike where can I find those polls….
Otteray Scribe: “Even when I think I might have something useful to say, I no longer bother because of Tootie and her obsessive and self-righteous rants. She is no more interested in exchanging ideas…”
—
I read the replies to them now and then to see what others think about something, not with any hope of it moderating her behavior. I always enjoy your postings.
*********
“My guess is that Tootie may have tried to post on other blogs, but many moderated blogs would have banned her a long time ago.
–
I am of the opinion that Professor Turley has been very busy; he has had recently and does now have active cases he needs to work and who knows what else. Those weekends he gets ‘off’ may also include work at home for his legal cases. I give him the benefit of the doubt in those regards. I don’t think, or, I would rather think, that if he had the time to stay on top of the Blawg 2T would have received an email already regarding her posting ‘style’ if nothing else.
Stamford Liberal, don’t give out any info…..this is a cafe in the clouds and you make me nervous to offer such invitations to the angry….
Otteray Scribe,
I find it best not to read the comments of certain posters–and I often avoid hijacked threads that go on infinitum. By doing these two things, I can still enjoy the exchange of both ideas and witticisms at the Turley blog.
So, Ms. Elaine….did you read this……just wanna make sure I am under the teacher radar but still visible when all hell breaks loose….
Woosty,
Try these for a start. Look at the demographics in the Gallup poll which shows how they differ from the average citizen:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/tea-party-republican-party-new-polling-data-shows
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
“Your statement raises the matters that I have been considering. I have been thinking about taking a break from the blawg but really, what does that accomplish? Trolls win.”
Lotta,
First in fairness let me say that at times I am vulnerable to a suspicious mind verging on paranoia that I’ve learned to control after years of therapy. After all my earliest memory is that of my parents lying to me.
I had to throw in that caveat because the suspicion has been growing in me that tootie is not all she appears to be. She portrays herself as an uneducated, underpaid, working women, stressed by the climate of today’s uncertain situations. Yet if you’ve followed her posts from the beginning you see an evolution from hit and run tactics, to a more voluble exhibition of her regressive opinions. In that sense she more and more appears to me to be another incarnation of the ongoing “agent provocateurs” that we have familiarly seen populating this blog for the purpose of disrupting and taunting what they perceive to be “amoral Libs.” This implies to me someone who is not at all what they seem to be.
Our problem then is how does one ever know this to be a fact? Didn’t bdaman initially appear to be one and yet as time has passed, while I don’t share his views, he has shown himself to be a serious poster and defender of his viewpoint. for this blog to continue it is necessary that there be a variety of viewpoints, or else we become insular and self-congratulatory.
With tootie only time will tell, until then as I stated above, we need not let her vitriol go unchallenged.
“I read your answers to Tootie without a thought for Tootie as your answers are chocked full of insight into Jewish traditions, Christian traditions, historical events, and political science colored with real life experience. This is valuable information that stimulates my thought processes, excites my curiosity, or answers questions I’ve long pondered.”
Blouise,
Thank you so much for your gracious comments. They would turn my head though, were it not for the fact that I know myself to be
just another adrift schmuck, trying to make sense of it all. Though I daren’t tell her this, besides the amazing support which has saved my life on three occasions, her loving me/my loving her, my wife performs me a most valuable service by reminding me in the many times I get far too “full of myself” who I really am. Nevertheless, your comment above gives me a warm feeling of pride in myself, even if like most things my wisdom is ephemeral.
Blouise
I agree with you on reading just Mike S.’s replies to Tootie. A great deal of information and food for thought can be gained.
Mike S.
I’m not sure Tootie is an “agent provocateur”, but she may be. She shows all the anger, pain, and frustration of the type of person she purports to be. And I feel some sympathy for her exasperation.
What I don’t enjoy on this, or any other site, is for the owner to accept as free speech an overabundance of vicious insults and snarky comments (and certainly not personal threats) either from Tootie or those who reply to her – at least for any length of time or in every thread.
I left a site that had no monitoring to come here where I understood monitoring was in place. I understand JT’s situation where time and inclination are limited. I’m also concerned for the site’s reputation in the wider blog world and beyond.
I understand that many posters here are lawyers and used to the adversarial response which is to convince rather than elucidate. That’s fine when used without insults, but less likely to explore and enlighten when used with them.
Perhaps those of us who are concerned should leave for a while and return if the problem is solved, though I’ll probably peek in as I still do with the other site.
P.S. Is your wife perhaps channeling Abigail Adams? She sounds like a real sweetheart.
Mike Spindell-
I know for a fact that you are neither schmuck, nor schmendrick, nor schlemiel. You are, indeed, a mensch in a world of schleppers. Not to mention, a hochem. (I had to look that one up).
Mazel tov!
Blouise:
LOL – Thank you, and right back at ya
Blouise and Woosty’s still a Cat,
I re-read what I posted. Obviously, my emotions got the better of me, contributing to some of the toxicity present here. For that I apologize.
I think Mike S. said it best in that while saying it is better to ignore someone like Tootie, it can be difficult in allowing her hypocrisy and outrageousness to slide by. I also agree with him when he said that in today’s media, ignorance is applauded, while intelligence is demonized. This is something that, particularly in today’s environment, should not be tolerated. Especially when those who are called out attempt to portray themselves as the victim instead of accepting responsibility for their words and actions. For all the talk of personal responsibility, it’s high time those individuals buck up and take responsibility.
Having a 19 year-old daughter has taught me to pick and choose my battles wisely. I lose that distinction when it comes to those much older, those who claim to be something they obviously are not. I need to work on this in the knowledge that some adults are just as thick-headed and ignorant about the world and how it works as my “know it all” kid (but I still like her, think I’ll keep her!).
I have learned much here; I enjoy the topics and the debates. In future, I will do my best to keep my emotions in check and not allow Tootie the priviledge of playing the victim’s violin. But, to be sure, I’ll still call bullsh*t when I see it.
Lottakatz,
“Hot chocolate, extra whipped cream and a heavy shot of Bailey’s Irish Cream”
If you want to try another calorie-busting-but-to-die-for combination, try hot chocolate with Butterscotch Schnapps.
HenMan,
Oy Vey!
Buckeye,
I enjoy having you around and would hate to see you leave. I would miss your prescient perspective. I began writing here after spending a while posting on Democrats.com. and Alternet. What bothered me at both those sites was that as a supporter of Israel, the posters couldn’t accept my progressive credentials. The fact that I oppose the current Israeli Government and highly dislike AIPAC, seemed to make no difference.
There are many here who also take a dim view of Israel’s role in the mid-East conflict, but present cogent, often persuasive to me, arguments for the positions they hold. Those at those other sites were primarily ideologues. While for the most part I hold views that are congruent with progressive thought, following any particular “party line” is not in my nature. That is what makes this blog such a positive experience in that so many of us are our own people, rather than being ideologues. In that context you would be missed and I hope you reconsider.
Mike S.,
In re bdaman and Tootles
I’ve been saying for some time, even directly to him, that he is not a true troll. He’s a faux troll at worst. “badtroll”, my pet name for him, is meant as a double entendre. He’s consumed too much propaganda on some issues and hence regurgitates it occasionally: a natural reaction to propaganda poisoning. I most wholeheartedly agree he is not a troll proper.
I also agree with your assessment of Tootles. Her initial simple appearance has – especially as of late – been belied by a change in both tactics and substance. She is most certainly not what she seems.
As to how to combat their infestation and propagation of lies and dangerous memes? I think we do a better job than most places by using various applications of reason, evidence, logic and humor. Their increasing frustration – even to the point of stepping from behind the curtain at times – only illustrates this. Do things get heated to the point of being hot? Most certainly. But the cool breeze of reason always tempers the edge of heated rhetoric in the end – just as it always has here. However, it is important to keep in mind that there is a war going on for the minds of American citizens. A war being waged by professional propagandists against civilians often unfamiliar with their tactics and strategies. So unfamiliar in fact, that many do not know they are being attacked as they are being attacked. I know the terms of inciting violence are (rightfully) out of vogue and should remain that way, but the metaphor of war is most apt for propaganda. In war, some battles become more heated than anyone anticipates: this is why they call it the ‘fog of war’. However, as you point out, standing aside to let the bad ideas propagate unchallenged is no more an option than is legitimizing them. The conundrum of how to discredit and disarm without some appearance of legitimization is and will remain exactly that though: a conundrum. The only solution I can see is to follow the advice of Sir Winston. “Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer. You have only to persevere to save yourselves.” – Winston Churchill
The trick in doing so is perseverance without losing touch with the “angels of our better nature”. To become what one fights is to loose the battle. The trick, however, is a trick here I think every one of the regulars pulls off with great astuteness and skill even if sometimes the pyrotechnics cause temporary flash blindness.
Buckeye,
I suspect that the Prof moderates in moderation … I have no real knowledge of this but I liked putting the words together.
I also suspect he respects our ability to moderate ourselves and each other with gentle chiding and that he does not wish to interfere with the passion of closely held beliefs nor the conversation that … if you read threads closely … often resolves the conflict.
I prefer to accept initial posters for who they are and involve them in the conversation. If they are agent provocateurs, time will indeed reveal their mission … I also pay attention to the opinions of the long time posters in this area as they have met and mastered several of the agents over the years and their “sniffers” are sensitive to the con.
Initially I was put off by the ugliness that the agent provocateurs create and not being a blogger on any other site, this was my introduction to the breed. A couple of the experienced folk on the blog explained the agent provocateur role as intentional disruption to accomplish exactly what you are considering … drive people off and denude the blog thus keeping the ideas expressed here from gaining any ground at all. It’s political dirty trickster stuff and often a pay check is involved.
Once I understood I stopped taking them so seriously and only occasionally enter the fray.
I’ve been reading Tootie for a long time and 2-3 months ago he/she started posting constantly whereas before he/she was an occasional poster. Also the posts have been getting more and more incendiary and contradictory. And if one knows fundamental Christians, and I know many, the thoughts expressed are not at all in line with the way fundamentalist think, reason, or express themselves. I don’t really believe I am dealing with a fundamentalist Christian when I answer Tootie and I choose my words accordingly.
However that is just a minor irritation. The rest of the blog is chocked full of stimulating conversation and I love it.
Buckeye, Stick around for a wee bit longer, I enjoy your postings. If you take a break though, promise to come back.
Buddha,
Once again we seem to be on the same wave-length … scary
See Mike? Look at this thread as an example. It is something we have both seen before. Even if you think back to Wayne’s threats, the shape of the events is still the same. Confrontation, conflagration, resolution, restoration.
After the heat of battle – which may run days, the fog began to clear, burned away by the sunshine and blown away by the breeze . . .
This is simply the way of things.
Can we eliminate the heat of battle altogether? I submit “no”. But our perseverance manifests not only in persistence and constancy in engaging the enemy (namely bad and socially dangerous memes), but in how the fires are extinguished.
Blouise,
Sometimes we think so much alike, I suspect in a different life, I might have given Tex a run for his money.
Buddha,
Like Blouise, I share your wavelength, as you well know. Your 3:27 pm comment was a bravura explanation of the dangers we face, why we face them and the possible way out. Your metaphor that we are in a war of words with propagandists of selfishness sums up my thoughts exactly, but it was clearly written and elegantly executed.
Damn it too, you saw the Obama and his real agenda coming and I had stars in my eyes. I don’t see him though as a personification of evil, more a disappointment of opportunity. However, as you have expressed all along there ain’t no saviors out there, we need to save ourselves.
Thanks for your input, Blouise. Well, really, all of you.
Let’s hope the “angels of our better nature” prevail and reason and humor rather than retaliatory insults will continue to be used to handle “problem” posters.
I like to throw the cat amongst the pigeons occasionally myself so I have to accept any feathers that land on me as a result.
Onward and, hopefully, upward!
I’m an activist. I pretty much have to be.
To see why, have a look at
http://transequality.org/PDFs/NTDS_Report.pdf
TLDR version at http://transequality.org/PDFs/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf
I don’t conceal my identity, nor my partisan bias. I try not to let it interfere too much with my objectivity, but I feel others are better judges of that than I am. Hopefully by revealing all, others can weigh what I say accurately, making allowances for my subjectivity.
Why comment? Why do we spend time and effort and energy writing comments? Is it ego-boo, is it to “win” in some competition, or is it to inform others to attain some ideological end? Is it perhaps by interaction, to learn something? Maybe change our views to improve them, as the result of being educated by others? Maybe a combination?
I consider it a “win” when I lose. When my views are shown to be flawed, so I can change them and improve them. OK, I’m a scientist, and also Aspergic, my thinking here is not typical, but I find it useful.
When engaging with a “Yosemite Sam”, it can be difficult trying to tease any good points they might make from the dross. I’m sure Tootie makes some good points, but I’ll be durned if I can find them in the mass of venom. Pity.
When such passionate fanatics are opposing you, and you are writing for an audience to try to convince them of the validity of your views, answering frothing insanity and vitriol with sweet reason is the way to go. Bystanders can soon see who’s moderately sane, and who’s stark staring bonkers. The aim here is not to convince or inform the opponent, it’s to play to the gallery.
I hereby declare this thread de-railed.
Sorry.
Zoe,
“The aim here is not to convince or inform the opponent, it’s to play to the gallery.”
I knew I liked you for some reason other than being a rocket scientist. You grok blogging as many of the regulars here practice it. And there is no need to apologize for the de-railing. Some of the most interesting and entertaining threads here involve, shall we say, wandering subjects.
Lotta, Zoe,
Of course I meant Brian. Apologies for an obvious typo that I even checked for. That’s why it always pays to have someone else do your editing.
Everyone else,
As I’ve said in the past, I don’t hold anyone to my standards but myself. Which of course is who my break was about. We all have our reasons for being here. I just had to remember what mine was.
Oh the whining and the crying!
LOL
I ignore Tootie but talk about her incessantly!
Hee hee.
Mommy, Tootie posts too much! Whaaaaaa.
Oh, and the only blog I’m permanently banned from is the Red State blog.
This is because they are neocon war-mongering imperialists and don’t much like to be reminded of it.
I post all over the internet. Especially at left-wing blogs.
Post all you like, Tootles.
Just expect to have your retrograde idiotic theocratic homophobic nonsense ridiculed.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
unconstitutional is such an overwrought word. I think we should come up with something different.
http://www.eLawsuit.com