liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[Jim in CT]

Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Wesleyan University. Justice Scalia, as most people know, is pretty darned conservative in his interpretation of the Constitution. Wesleyan, for those who don't know, is an Ivy League-caliber school, possibly the most liberal place on Earth, and a place where the liberals like to protest. Kudos to Scalia for agreeing to go into this hornet's nest of intolerance and monolithic thinking.

I was there. It was an interesting experience in seeing what liberal, priviledged kids due with their "tolerance"..

Protesters everywhere, which is innocent enough. One kid had a sign that said "end the war, tax the rich". I bet this kid got 1600 on his SAT's, but I guess he never took Poli-Sci 101, or he'd know that the judicial branch controls neither the military nor writes the tax code.

There were kids chanting that the GOP (of which Scalia holds no position) favors the rich. I wonder if these kids know that (1) Obama wants to increase the tax credits to people who buy the Volt to $10,000, and that (2) the average salary of Volt owners is $175,000. Those folks need a handout from Obama? How is that helping the poor and downtrodden?

Inside the lecture hall, a bunch of students were wearing orange jumpsuits with black hoods over their heads. Not sure what their point was.

During Scalia's lecture, a bunch of kids in the balcony threw condoms down towards the stage. Nice.

These are the intellectual elite of liberalism. Is civil discourse really too much to ask? What are these kids going to do when they get jobs and have issues with bosses and co-workers, throw condoms at them?

These are the same people who are criticizing Rush Limbaugh for using derogatory terms to describe a feminist activist. And they see no irony or hypocrisy.

A mental disorder.

[PaulS]

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

First, throwing condoms at someone is not protesting, that's called making an ass out of yourself, because you are admitting you cannot debate the person you disagree with, so you throw htings.

Second, I'm not comparing what these kids did to what Rush did (although I could very well). Read my comment, OK? I'm saying that these same liberals are criticizing Rush for being uncivilized, and then throwing condoms at a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

Anyone who thinks it's OK to throw condoms at someone they disagree with, has no right to criticize Rush. If he has no right to act that way, neither do they. In other words, these same kids were saying last week "how dare Rush use that language, doesn't he know how inappropriate that is. Now, where are the condoms to throw at Scalia, that'll settle his hash".

Try making that wrong.

[PaulS]

And I'll add that I don't agree w/anyone disrupting anyone's speach. They should protest outside.

[PaulS]

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

The kids at Wesleyan approved of throwing condoms. And I'm willing to bet those same kids think Rush was boorish.

" throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals. "

maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

If Justice Ginsburg gave an anti-war talk at West Point, none of the cadets would throw things at her, and if anyone did, they'd get expelled.

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

[spence]

Throwing condoms? Really? It's a bunch of college students and you want to equate throwing condoms with Rush's repugnant and vile comments? The same comments that have caused him to grovel on air (never seen before) and lose 25 sponsors?

Really?

Back at Iowa State the Young Republicans Club used to protest GLBTA events by bringing live sheep and holding signs that read "Adam and Steve" and "Exit Only".

They published a spoof newspaper and on the cover was a guy screwing a giant stuffed animal to demonstrate "proper technique" learned at the event. I have a copy if you want to see it

I even went to a party of theirs once and spoke with one of the most vocal. He was proud of his tight black gloves because he thought it made him look like a Nazi.

So I'd have to say your entire argument is complete bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

-spence

[justplugit]

Maybe they were trying to upstage Fluke's ploy by making a statement they wanted free condoms for men's health in Obamacare too.

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge.

And insulting our President by lying about his religion and where he was born- Nice respect towards our President.

[spence]

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify. There's outrage so they hold another and invite a few token women with no real discussion.

So to get visibility on a very reasonable issue, the Dems invite a young woman to speak about how some women do need medically prescribed conception for valid health issues.

And in response, arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women.

Republican's, terrified of Rush's wrath are frozen and offer only token responses. In what should be a leadership moment, none of them lead. George Will nails it "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

And all you do it tighten the tin foil.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify.

-spence

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. The Republican-sponsored hearings were not about women's health, they were about religious freedom and the first amendment. Ms Fluke has no expertise in these matters.

How weak is your position to start with, if you need to lie about the fundamental nature of the issue? you're being dishonest right off the bat.

"arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women"

He is defaming women of financial means, who somehow insist that they can't afford their own condoms.

"And all you do it tighten the tin foil."

If defending the first amendment is tightening the tin foil, I proudly plead guilty. The Bill of Rights applies to all of us Spence, even Catholics. If enough people want to change the Constitution so that condoms supercede the freedom of religion, there are mechanisms to amend the constitution thiusly. Until then, not even Obama has the authority to decide who has religious freedom and who doesn't.

[scottw]

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

Spence, maybe you're right, maybe Scalia does love this stuff. I know I do, because it exposes liberals for the intolerant, hateful anarchists that so many are. your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

"Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her"

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

Is civil discouse simply beyond the ability of liberals? By throwing condoms, these kids are saying "I don't agree with Scalia, but I cannot explain why, I can't engage him in debate, all i can do is throw condoms".

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.

Your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

[scottw]

Fluke attended a Jesuit University knowing full well beforehand what the policies were, she's spent her time there undermining those policies...this was an attempt, though a rogue assist from the Federal Government to further those goals.

Spence, the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American. You seem to struggle with the limits placed on government and the guarantees , in this case, religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no guarantee of free contraception or gender reassignment anywhere in the Constitution, Ms. Fluke could easily attend another University with acceptable policies to her, noone forced her to attend this school, she's chosen to spend her time while at this school undermining the University's policies and it's Constitutional protections on this issue as well as many others just as so many that you support spend their time undermining our Constitution and Constitutional protections. Obamacare is the example in this case, the government now feels inclined to order private institutions and companies to provide things for free, particularly things that they feel they can get a lot of mileage out of politically. If the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American and you spend all of your time undermining it and supporting the undermining of it....what does that make you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.


Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?


I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.


It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?


No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

"Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after"

OK. Using your logic, Ms Fluke is a self-described women's reproductive rights activist, so why didn't she know what she was getting into. She got into Georgetown Law, so she's obviously very bright. Why do you assume she was innocent, naive little waif? because it makes my side look bad, that's why...

"To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly."

Please show me proof of consrvetive college students throwing condoms at an invited liberal guest. The left has an ALMOST (not quite) monopoly on this type of behavior Spence. You almost never hear of right-wing riots. Anarchy is the method of liberals, not conservatives.

"It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?"

Not if those laws prohibit the church from pursuing their beliefs. Have you even read the first amendment? Do you ever get one right, even by accident? Read this please, from the first amendment...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

The church isn't interfering with women's health. The church isn't telling these women that they cannot use condoms, the church is just saying that the church doesn't want to provide them. A small number of women need birth control pills for true medical needs (my wife is one of them). In the vast majority of cases, contraception is a tool to engage in casual sex, and thus not anything remotely resembling "medicine".

Spence, if I buy a gun, it's in everyone's interest for me to attend a gun safety class. But I can't force my employer to pay for it. If I choose to get involved with guns, that's my choice, and thus my responsibiolity to ensure I do it safely. I have no right to ask anyone else to pay for it. Similarly, if I want to get involved in casual sex, by what right to I take your money out of your pocket to buy my condoms with? Putting aside women who have legitimate medical needs, which is a very small minority.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;926156]
"maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always."

Didn't you see my post saying I didn't approve of the behavior? And I didn't see any conserv. chastising the behavior of calling woman sluts and prostitutes (sure there was some half hearted comments after the uproar - but conserv. constantly insult people they don't like. You yourself call woman vile names on this site.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

"So if I pull up a picture of a leader of the teabaggers with a racist sign that doesn't that discredit this comment?"

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

And Jim, I'm sorry there is a whole lost of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes "your side" look classless and uncivilized. That is not my fault. PS - I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

"Wasn't that what they refered what they refered themselves to? Frankly I'm just responding to your posts."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types on most issues and many on the right, you'll likely note that much of what is being debated in this current election was addressed quite thoroughly by Reagan...you should spend some time

here's one that is currently applicable..his radio addresses were brilliant..1961

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.


funny how history repeats itself

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA

Pennsylvania Legislature swears in new members; GOP has majority
Tuesday, January 04, 2011,
By The Associated Press The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania General Assembly began its new legislative session today by swearing in new and returning members and electing Republican veterans to lead each chamber.

Twenty-one freshmen Republicans and eight new Democrats were sworn in to the House, and Jefferson County Republican Sam Smith was elected speaker. The Senate swore in 25 members, including three Democratic freshmen, and elected Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to a third term as president pro tempore.

Neither Smith nor Scarnati was opposed.

Smith urged members to live up to the responsibilities of their office, and gave the freshman class particular advice. "Don't read your own news releases, keep your feet on the ground and be mindful of why you wanted to be here and why the voters elected you," Smith said.

With both the House and Senate in GOP hands, and Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett preparing to be inaugurated Jan. 18, the Capitol is poised to take a rightward turn from the divided government of recent years. State government's massive deficit will be their first challenge.

House Republicans regained the majority in the November election after two terms in the minority; their margin is 112-91. The Senate has been firmly in GOP hands for many years, and its majority is currently 30-20. Each house also has a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic lawmaker.

I also count 1 Republican Senator and 1 Democrat Senator as well as 12 Republican Congresspeople and 7 Democrat Congresspeople

which Pennsylvania were you referring to ????

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

Where to begin?

You're saying today's Democrats aren't more liberal than a generation ago? Condoms in elementary schools? Partial birth abortions? Willfully ignoring immigration laws? Giving public labor unions a blank check? Pretending that we're not at war with Islamic terrorists?

"Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's"

Yeah, Newt was a real nut. He (along with Bill Clinton, who I assume you also consider a right-wing nut) balanced the budget, cut spending, cut taxes, and got millions of welfare recipients back to work. God knows, none of those ideas has any usefulness today, right, Zimmy?

Our country is more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War, and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. Any group that thinks murderers have more of a right to live than unborn babies, who think that affirmative action isn't clearly unconstitutional, who is afraid to admit that there's any such thing as Islamic terrorists, who thinks it's OK to ignore immigration laws, and who thinks it's OK for states to go bankrupt to enrich public labor unions, is kooky in my opinion.

My side stands for individual freedom, compassion for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, supporting the free market. I can see how Zimmy sees these ideas as radical.

[spence]

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

and ...that...means????

[detbuch]

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.

As I've stated above, meanings of words in the Constitution have intentionally been changed to mean other than what the framers meant. To correctly "interpret" the words, a judge should apply the meanings at the time of ratification. And, when, in dictionaries of the time, multiple meanings existed, the context of the Constitutional phrasing and the recorded arguments at ratification and collateral literature such as newspapers, the Federalist Papers, etc. should be consulted. The context within the Constitution and wide usage of articles at the time as well as the Federalist Papers reveal a consistent meaning of "regulate" as used in the Constitution meant something like "to make regular" or "to make well-functioning." Nowhere is there an indication that to regulate, as used in the Constitution, meant to prohibit an activity nor to force activities that would infringe on the sovereign rights of the People. Prohibiting "inactivity" is clearly not a function of "regulate" as used in the Constitution. But, as I say, meanings of words such as "regulate" have been transformed from the narrow definition that was obvious at ratification to convenient "interpretation" that allowed the Federal Gvt. power it was not, clearly, intended to have. FDR's court was the main turning point.

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.

That's not only a non-sequitur, but a contradiction. First, it doesn't follow that because the uninsured, supposedly, place a large burden that there is really no such thing as inactivity. Then to say that something which doesn't exist places a burden, is actually saying that that something DOES exist. Also saying that by not actively participating in the purchase of insurance is not inactivity in such participation means that all inaction is action. This may be true in some absolutist, minimalist philosophy in the same sense that no matter what we do, or don't do, is in some measure, responsible for the condition of the world. That may be true, but we do make verbal distinctions that are necessary for well functioning lives and societies. And if choosing not to participate in an activity means we have actually chosen to participate, we are doing so in a different way toward a different end. That is freedom of choice and association which is not to be abridged by the Federal Gvt.

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.

It makes perfect sense to one who subscribes to current progressive interpretation of "regulate" and "commerce." In researching the meaning of "commerce" at the time, it also was consistently used in the narrow sense of actual trade and barter. Even though dictionaries of the time had other usages of the word, it was not used in the proceedings, writings, etc. of the time in other than the narrow definition. Also the Constitution limits Federal regulation to interstate (among the States) commerce. But, again, under FDR's Court, the definition of Commerce was expanded to mean anything that in the aggregate could somehow affect commerce. And this interpretation was allowed to apply within a State or locality, lifting the interstate requirement. Which is to say, everything we do, or don't do can somehow, no matter how remotely, affect commerce. These interpretations mean that the Federal Gvt. can "regulate" you to do whatever it wishes. Is that, is or is that not, tyrannical? And, if that is what the framers meant, why bother with the rest of the Constitution? The Constitution could have been reduced to one sentence--The Federal Government has the power to regulate.

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

As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I've stated above, meanings of words in the Constitution have intentionally been changed to mean other than what the framers meant. To correctly "interpret" the words, a judge should apply the meanings at the time of ratification. And, when, in dictionaries of the time, multiple meanings existed, the context of the Constitutional phrasing and the recorded arguments at ratification and collateral literature such as newspapers, the Federalist Papers, etc. should be consulted. The context within the Constitution and wide usage of articles at the time as well as the Federalist Papers reveal a consistent meaning of "regulate" as used in the Constitution meant something like "to make regular" or "to make well-functioning." Nowhere is there an indication that to regulate, as used in the Constitution, meant to prohibit an activity nor to force activities that would infringe on the sovereign rights of the People. Prohibiting "inactivity" is clearly not a function of "regulate" as used in the Constitution. But, as I say, meanings of words such as "regulate" have been transformed from the narrow definition that was obvious at ratification to convenient "interpretation" that allowed the Federal Gvt. power it was not, clearly, intended to have. FDR's court was the main turning point.

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

That's not only a non-sequitur, but a contradiction. First, it doesn't follow that because the uninsured, supposedly, place a large burden that there is really no such thing as inactivity. Then to say that something which doesn't exist places a burden, is actually saying that that something DOES exist. Also saying that by not actively participating in the purchase of insurance is not inactivity in such participation means that all inaction is action. This may be true in some absolutist, minimalist philosophy in the same sense that no matter what we do, or don't do, is in some measure, responsible for the condition of the world. That may be true, but we do make verbal distinctions that are necessary for well functioning lives and societies. And if choosing not to participate in an activity means we have actually chosen to participate, we are doing so in a different way toward a different end. That is freedom of choice and association which is not to be abridged by the Federal Gvt.

I think you just made the Administration's case

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

It makes perfect sense to one who subscribes to current progressive interpretation of "regulate" and "commerce." In researching the meaning of "commerce" at the time, it also was consistently used in the narrow sense of actual trade and barter. Even though dictionaries of the time had other usages of the word, it was not used in the proceedings, writings, etc. of the time in other than the narrow definition. Also the Constitution limits Federal regulation to interstate (among the States) commerce. But, again, under FDR's Court, the definition of Commerce was expanded to mean anything that in the aggregate could somehow affect commerce. And this interpretation was allowed to apply within a State or locality, lifting the interstate requirement. Which is to say, everything we do, or don't do can somehow, no matter how remotely, affect commerce. These interpretations mean that the Federal Gvt. can "regulate" you to do whatever it wishes. Is that, is or is that not, tyrannical? And, if that is what the framers meant, why bother with the rest of the Constitution? The Constitution could have been reduced to one sentence--The Federal Government has the power to regulate.

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.

As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

-spence

Here's another read for you:

Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011TheWashingtonPost
Is health care cost-shifting real?

By Jennifer Rubin


In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit earlier this week, the government’s lawyer and the Obamacare challengers’ lawyer faced off on the legality of the individual mandate. The Obama administration’s lawyer was on the defensive, as the Associated Press reported:


Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.

“That’s what stops the slippery slope,” he said.

As a preliminary matter, this sort of rationale is inappropriate for constitutional analysis. If the Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to buy something you don’t want, why does a policy argument (cost-shifting) suddenly bestow constitutional legitimacy on the individual mandate? The idea that “because we have a really good reason for doing it so it must be constitutional” is in fact the “slippery slope” personified. The government invariably is convinced it has a really good reason for doing something; it’s the courts’ job to determine if the text and framework of the Constitution allow it to do it.

Yuval Levin has a more compelling rebuttal: The argument isn’t true. He writes:


[C]ost shifting from the uninsured to the insured today is pretty negligible. Cost shifting from Medicaid—which pays doctors very poorly, forcing them to overcharge patients with private insurance—is greater, but it will grow, not shrink, under Obamacare, since the law would vastly expand the scope of Medicaid coverage without reforming the program. Cost shifting does not provide a legal justification for the individual mandate, but it does contribute to the policy argument for repealing Obamacare.

Levin references a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard and Daniel Kessler. In that piece the authors explain:


A study conducted by George Mason University Prof. Jack Hadley and John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin and Dawn Miller of the Urban Institute, and published in the journal Health Affairs in 2008, found that so-called cost shifting raises private health insurance premiums by a negligible amount. The study’s authors conclude: “Private insurance premiums are at most 1.7 percent higher because of the shifting of the costs of the uninsured to private insurance.” For the typical insurance plan, this amounts to approximately $80 per year.

The Health Affairs study is supported by another recent peer- reviewed study that focused exclusively on physicians. That 2007 study, authored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists Jonathan Gruber and David Rodriguez and published in the Journal of Health Economics, found no evidence that doctors charged insured patients higher fees to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.
The authors argue that the government relied on sloppy, flawed studies to come up with the cost-shifting rationale. They explain:


Specifically, Congress ignored the $40 billion to $50 billion that is spent annually by charitable organizations and federal, state and local governments to reimburse doctors and hospitals for the cost of caring for the uninsured. These payments, which amount to approximately three-fourths of the cost of such care, mitigate the extent of cost shifting and reduce the magnitude of the hidden tax on private insurance.

Moreover, the economics of markets for health services suggests that any cost shifting that may occur is unlikely to affect interstate commerce. Because markets for doctor and hospital services are local--not national--the impact of cost shifting will be borne where it occurs, not across state lines.

If accurate, this is quite a problem from a policy perspective for the defenders of the individual mandate. If the free-rider problem (as Mitt Romney liked to refer to it) is virtually nonexistent there certainly must be cheaper ways to address the problem of the uninsured. And if in the Medicare system Obamacare duplicates the Medicaid problem (“Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are so low that the program creates a cost shift of its own”), Obamacare will dramatically increase cost-shifting. As the adage goes, you’ll see how expensive health care will be when it’s free.

The lesson here applies not only to Obamacare. Government schemes to monkey with the marketplace are rarely as precise as their creators would have us believe. Central control is and always has been a poor substitute for real marketplaces in which willing sellers and buyers set prices. When the government forces or cajoles buyers into the market (whether it be to purchase health care or “affordable” housing) it rarely turns out as planned.

By Jennifer Rubin | 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

This is a classic case of the government creating the problem (The Emergency Medical Treatment Act) and then swooping in as the saviour to solve it. And the situation was supposedly made "regular" by that act. To say that it is now "irregular" and will be made "regular" by another act that will have similar discrepancies in who will bear the burdens of cost, but now through an even more sweeping and classically unconstitutional Act is further mandating that transfer of wealth as a goal is the ultimate regulation. Making commerce regular is not making it all the same, but allowing it to function under the same rules. Making interstate commerce "regular" was originally intended to make commerce between States freer, not to mandate that there be commerce, or any particular type of commerce. The only function of the Federal Gvt. regulation was to allow commerce to be free from interstate commercial wars such as tariffs and restrictions against import or sale of goods from other States. Commerce would thus be made "regular" between the States and flourish rather than suffer from interstate restrictions. And regulating INTERstate commerce was not, originally, about INTRAstate health care nor how those within a State pay for it. As I said, removing the interstate aspect, redefining "commerce" to mean anything that might possibly affect it, and "broadening" the definition of "regulate" to include power to prohibit commerce or to require that there be a certain or certain type of commerce ,or even, now, to create a whole structure of a new definition of commerce that can be mandated universally regardless of place, would not be remotely possibe under the Constitution as written--but, obviously possible under the rewritten one that is the fellow traveller of the administrative state.

I think you just made the Administration's case

No, the reduction of inactivity to activity is absurd. It's just a linguistic trick, like what most of progressive reasoning is. Non-existence is existence. Yeah, right. That only works as an abstract thought puzzle. What if you insert a concrete object in the puzzle? The turtle that doesn't exist is the turtle that exists. I suppose such a turtle should be forced to buy health care. Under strict textual interpretation, if I choose to not buy something, there is no commerce. And that something, to boot, is within my State, not interstate, there is nothing, under the original Constitution, for the Federal Gvt. to "make regular". I would not be a part of that commercial process so would not be under its regulation. Bearing in mind, also, that regulate under that Consitution did not partake in its meaning any prohibitive or coercive notion against individual rights. But under the redefined words of our progressive administrative State my not buying something, in the total aggregate of such inaction, might affect the price of health care, so I must, therefore, buy something I don't want to buy, and the absurdity of inactivity being activity and my being forced to engage in an activity which is entirely different than the inactivity/activity I prefer, is perfectly fine.

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

There's that administrative mentality which believes that even being on one's own must be government mandated.

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.

At the time of the Constitution most health care was not interstate. And most was paid for out of pocket--so was much cheaper. Of course, most health care today is also not interstate, but that portion of the Constitution has been "interpreted" out of existence, and today, with third party pay, and various government regulations, health care is vastly more expensive than if it were paid out of pocket. As has been mentioned, States are free to have their own "plans" for how to pay for it. That you consider the Federal Government being the administrator is more efficient, is not Constitutionally relevant. It is not, classically, a Federal responsibility. And arguments about efficiency and cost are too often proven wrong--efficiency leading to inflexibility and costs actually becoming greater, but those are irrelevant considerations. ITS NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.


I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

I wasn't informed about such a conservative subscription. Nor is it relevant to the Constitution. No, an error "standing the test of time" is still an error. Besides, what makes you conclude that it has stood the test. If there is constant regulation and re-regulation and system failure and costs and debt beyond the possibility of paying, and a surrender of State, local, and individual rights to a behemoth central power with no end in sight to it's expansive regulatory power, what test has this been standing?

Man! The mundane collective! That's conservative? Who was talking about conservative anyway? Thought we were talking Constitution. I don't know--aren't collectives more a progressive, socialist thing?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence

It's not about respect for the Founders. It's about what kind of government you want. I don't find collectivism, and all-powerful, unrepresentative government to be wise.