liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

wow

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

"legally protected access to contraception"

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

[scottw]

creating a "legal mandate" forcing private insurers(companies) to provide a product, for free, with no co-pay and effectively forcing institutions(who may be self-insurers and may be Catholic or otherwise) who pay for or sponsor the service(insurance) to provide something which may contradict their religious or moral teaching and belief is a usurpation of the Constitution....and it's just the beginning



yes Spence...the insurers are targets

“The private market is in a death spiral,” Sebelius said

Later on Tuesday, in an address to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, Sebelius discussed the “broken” health insurance system that Obamacare aims to fix.

Sebelius said that the next “important step” in implementing the president's health care plan is to establish “essential health benefits”--the basic package of coverage that the federal government will order all health insurance plans to cover.

The Affordable Care Act outlines 10 areas of basic coverage, including preventive services, prescription drugs, pediatric care and hospital services. The "preventive services" area is the one under which the administration has already ordered that all health insurance plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions, without charging any fees or co-pay to insured workers and their dependents.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay..

It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers.

Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.
-spence

oh brother

you forgot the part about Obamacare mandating insurance coverage....one thing leads to another...very conveniently I suppose

you may also want to remember that the contraception mandate was not part of the original law that was dubiously passed...what was passed gave power to Sebilius to defiine at a later date what constituted and could be mandated for certain care, the possibilities may be endless....I guess if you don't mind laws like these being passed giving people like Sebilius(or perhaps someone who you disagree with) a very wide berth to determine and mandate what does and does not constitute certain care free or otherwise....or anything else....the pendulum swings both ways

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

" never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

First of all, you said this on this thread...

"Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception"

That's your quote. If you concede that there is NO LAW WHATSOEVER that requires employers to offer contraception, then why are we having this conversation? If there is no such law, from where does Obama get the authority to order an employer (Catholic Church) to offer contraceptives to its employees?

Spence, it seems like you're all over the place here...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

"you might question the effectiveness of such teaching"

No, you and your liberal ilk should question the effectiveness of contraception. When libs demanded that contraception be made universally available diring the sexual revolution, they said that contraceptives would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. Turns out, your side could not have been more wrong (as usual), as the numbers of those things have skyrocketed now that we have transformed sex into a casual thing.

Not a great cultural leap forward in my book.

And refraining from the use of contraceptives is not a "binding belief" of the catechism. Some beliefs are "binding" - meaning, you are not allowed to disoute that Jesus is the son of God. Other beliefs (like saying the rosary, refraining from contraceptives) are non-binding.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable.

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.
it's not at all a separate topic...we wouldn't be having this discussion if the democrats hadn't rammed constitutionally questionable legislation through congress which gave a political appointee the broad power to arbitrarily create mandates ....and "rights" apparently....a number of democrats would not have supported the legislation if this were spelled out at the time the legislation was passed and I'm pretty sure that some of them have said that they would not have been on board if they knew that this was going to result...this is insane Spence and you continue to not only support it but make excuses for it....... your poll doesn't mean squat

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. no, it is whether the federal government can force a religious institution to conform to an arbitrary and questionable federal mandate which violates their religious principles and was created as a result of a questionable federal law, have you forgotten the dubious way in which the law was actually passed??? you are on very weak ground when you refer to it as "Federal Law" There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable. there's a big difference between what the states can mandate and the Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, another thing that you seem to not understand

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

this is really basic stuff Spence..but somehow, like our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief, you spend all of your time and supposed knowledge undermining the Constitution...

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.


I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com

I'd love to see Spence try to respond to this in a rational way.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the statist bunch that curently inhabits Washington...your arguments indicate that you don't think the government is limited by the Constitution as long as it in regard to things that you approve of

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....very weak...and predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the bunch that curently inhabits Washington

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

I think the crux of the argument is ensuring people get a base level of care in their insurance.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

"There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche."

Spence, you keep spinning in circles here, so let's make it simply clear.

Is there, or is there not, a law which compels employers to offer free contraception to employees?

"The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything"

They weren't? Spence, here you go making it up as you go along. That's what started all of this, Obama wanted the church to pay for contraception.

"the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy."

That math may be simple, but it's also tragically flawed. First, if you assume that every single woman denied contraception has an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe it's cheaper to give her contraception. And maybe not, because are you sure an abortion costs more than a "few hundred dollars"?

Second, that analysis assumes that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. If that were true (and that's demonstrably false), why have there been so many more kids born out of wedlock AFTER contraception was made widely available?

Third, Catholics aren't concerned about dollars, we are concerned with that pesky First Amendment. you know, the one that liberals hold up to support the right of pornographers? Freedom of religion happens to be in there too.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty.

Liberty is freedom from coercion. This includes freedom from coercive association. ALL parties in an association must be free from coercion, the employer as well as the employee in this case. You seem to feel that it is only the employee's freedom which must be protected. The Federal Government (unconstitutionally) mandated (through unelected bureaucrats of the NLRB) that employers must bargain collectively with unions under some guise of free association (free for employees, but not for employers who MUST associate with the collective group and cannot collude, associate, with other employers as a collective group). Though Ms. Fluke is not a member of a union, she is free to bargain for certain benefits, and the Church is free to agree or not--that is, in the world that the Constitution envisions. Of course, in the progressive world of our Administrative State, it is not up to either Ms. Fluke, nor up to the Church to bargain for or against something that a particular unelected administrator wishes to impose--for whatever reason that administrator wishes to conjure up. Nor does the administrator of this new regulatory agency need to feel any compunction to follow a pattern regulated by another regulatory agency (bargaining). As we keep "progressing" down this road toward complete Central planning and regulation, we can more blatantly dictate.

It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over. Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over.

A formal, textual reading of the law is the only way it can be applied consistently and uniformly. A law that can be "interpreted" in two ways (or more) is not a law but an opinion. A law that can "mean" whatever you want or is expedient for the moment, or the whims of rulers, is a meaningless conglomeration of words which create a legal patina for tyranny.

And there is no "do-over" in textual understanding either of legislation or the Constitution. For the latter, it is an adherence or return to it's principles. You misunderstand this in the same way you misunderstand, as you have often put it, "there are no mulligans." In golf, from whence the expression came, it is, as you say, a "do-over" to replace an errant shot. But in proper golf, again, as you say, "there are no mulligans." You count the bad stroke, but you don't, if you're competent, keep doing the same thing. You correct the flaw in your swing that caused the errant shot--usually by going back to basics. Likewise, having strayed from Constitutional governance to errant tyranny, you don't continue the mistake, but you return to basics--the Constitution.

Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

Not as possibly as our unlimited Federal Government has led itself into its own bloated, dictatorial state, which, in turn, has also led to bloated yet starving States who mimic it and depend with subservience on its leadership and mandates.

The nearly 150 years of Constitutional adherence before we were transformed into the Progressive administrative State, shows no evidence that a limited Federal Gvt. would lead to bloated, inefficient States. Nor does it show evidence that it would lead to the present bloated Federal Gvt. Bloating was not a problem at either level. the people, then, had more influence on State Governments than they now have on the Federal Gvt. which is probably a reason for less bloating. And the nation grew rapidly and exponentially during limited Central power. The evolutionary power of a free and diverse people, no doubt, was a contributing factor. Had the States retained power against a limited National Gvt., they would now have had to accede more to their constituents and less to a Central power, and would have maintained a more diverse, flexible, innovative, and evolutionary status, thus more likely to succeed, rather than being submissive to a one-size-fits-all Central power whose mistakes will be expanded rather then corrected. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, remember, the States cannot print money, so cannot so carelessly amass multi-trillions of debt. States can financially fail leading to necessary correction. The Federal Gvt. does not allow itself to fail. It just keeps spending and can't be stopped.

Remember also, that, though the Founders wanted limited central power, they did not want a weak Central Gvt. They wanted a strong National Gvt., but that strength had to be limited only to those powers granted in the Constitution. Within, and only within, those limitations was the National Gvt. all-powerful. That is why it is NECESSARY to limit the scope of Central power. When Progressives in Congress and the Presidency created agencies with powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and Progressive judges "interpreted' key clauses to allow such agencies to stand, the Federal Gvt. appropriated nearly all the powers, including those reserved to the States and the People with the exception of some vestiges of the Bill of Rights that can, in the future if necessary, easily be "interpreted" to violate some clause such as the Commerce clause. That is the expanding tyranny that we now face, and most people don't realize what has happened. Nor do they care that much so long as the Government maintains a pretense of benevolence.


You have mentioned that all that is needed for correction is for our government to act responsibly. That a few structural corrections would suffice. I asked what those corrections are, but you didn't respond. This would be a good a time as any to do so.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.

-spence

The odds of SCOTUS upholding the HCB are fairly good. The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, the Due Process Clause, and others have been intentionally "interpreted" in the past to mean what they were not meant to mean and what is clearly not stated in the Constitution. This has created the mass of Bad Case Law and accepted Law necessary for this country to function as a regulatory, administrative State rather than a Constitutionally representative one. Striking down the HCB could lead to reversals of what has been built, and if done too quickly, it could lead to widespread hardship. The more conservative constitutionally leaning justices have an onerous task. The progressive ones, like Kagan who is in favor not only of the HCB, but of the administrative State, will have no doubts as to their verdict or its consequences.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

-spence

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

But we all know that the uninsured place a large burden on the entire health care system nationally.

So there's really no such thing as inactivity.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I believe is at the core of the Administration's case, at least in respect to the commerce clause. And to me it does make perfect sense.

That's not to say the entire legislation is perfect. I think there are many other measures regarding tort reform and competition that could also help reduce costs.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

-spence

a repeating theme when the two of you engage is that one argues specifically for or against something and the other is constantly proposing muddled arguments around something...usually the Constitution

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

-spence

More likely it would be better with Home Rule and a small Fed Govt. allowing the people close access to the governing officials and issues.
For instance, when you have a gripe in your community or county, you can attend Council or Freeholder meetings to express your opinions and keep an eye on local and State issues.You are a face.
Except for an occasional Town Hall Meeting, phone call or e-mail you are just a
number to the Feds.
Can't imagine anything more bloated, inefficient or wastefull than things are now.