Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Xno Kappa]

Some of you deserve a fucking a lobectomy and a ban from Wikipedia. I honestly think this will solve of a majority of BG's retarded political/religious threads.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Be right back, going to 1818 before McCulloch v. Maryland.

I mean how pretentious can you be to think you are most adequate to interpret the U.S. Constitution (for everyone else especially), on the premise that you know the founders intent as if it was a concrete fact. If it was the Supreme Court would have never existed nor could amendments be possible.

I just fail to see why I should swallow your interpretation of the Constitution. I mean are you channeling the fucking dead in your basement and having them interpret the "original" intent of the Constitution for you? Its a document, it has to be interpreted when people disagree about its meaning. I mean, obviously you should be sitting in the Supreme Court right? Is BG one of the gateways for getting confirmed?

Where did I say I was adequate to interpret it? And it's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation the court always used until Roosevelt threatened to pack the court.

And I would much rather it be changed through amendments than anything else.

Edit: And I gave you a non-constitutional remedy jackass.

[Darus Grey]

Says the professor who can't even read.

You're like a broken record lol. Get new material.

[Not not Mattaru]

Where did I say I was adequate to interpret it? And it's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation the court always used until Roosevelt threatened to pack the court.

And I would much rather it be changed through amendments than anything else.

Can you give me the case that gives the commerce clause original interpretation you are referencing then? I am sure the majority opinion you are referring to is written down somewhere. Excuse me from when you say "original meaning" and do not imply its based on a certain decision that you are not talking about when it was written...by the founders...who probably had an idea of the "original meaning".

Moreover, considering the same court was using their interpretation to strike down things like child-labor laws etc. I spy a problem.

Moreover, if health insurance becomes competitive across state lines than really any argument for putting this under the commerce clause slips away and is more applicable to Necessary and Proper Clause.

And on the edit. If I called you out for everything you failed to respond to...I didn't because I wanted to focus on other points.

Moreover those are maybe solutions, I didn't even bother asking you to warrant any of that shit. Because why would I want you to go into it if I could point out problems even without your warrant? Which was basically "I think this oughta do it". Its not a leaky god damn faucet.

By with-holdings do you mean money taken from paychecks to pay for medical insurance policy (from the businesses chosen insurance plan)?
How are you going to stop a business from doing that if it chooses?

[ilduce]

Says the professor who can't even read.

There is a limit to how many times you can use the "u mad bro" defense, if abused it looses its meaning quickly.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Can you give me the case that gives the commerce clause original interpretation you are referencing then? I am sure the majority opinion you are referring to is written down somewhere. Excuse me from when you say "original meaning" and do not imply its based on a certain decision that you are not talking about when it was written...by the founders...who probably had an idea of the "original meaning".

Moreover, considering the same court was using their interpretation to strike down things like child-labor laws etc. I spy a problem.

Moreover, if health insurance becomes competitive across state lines than really any argument for putting this under the commerce clause slips away and is more applicable to Necessary and Proper Clause.

And on the edit. If I called you out for everything you failed to respond to...I didn't because I wanted to focus on other points.

Moreover those are maybe solutions, I didn't even bother asking you to warrant any of that shit. Because why would I want you to go into it if I could point out problems even without your warrant? Which was basically "I think this oughta do it". Its not a leaky god damn faucet.

By with-holdings do you mean money taken from paychecks to pay for medical insurance policy (from the businesses chosen insurance plan)?
How are you going to stop a business from doing that if it chooses?

With regards to with-holdings I just meant with-holding taxes.

By majority opinion to you mean still good law? Or law that once was good?

I also realize the court used the commerce clause to strike down child labor laws, justified civil rights laws etc. I don't think striking those laws down required the commerce clause. After Wicker v. United States, that was just the easiest way to do it.

And I'm not sure what your trying to argue with regards to selling across state lines/necessary proper clause.

[Not not Mattaru]

With regards to with-holdings I just meant with-holding taxes.

By majority opinion to you mean still good law? Or law that once was good?

I also realize the court used the commerce clause to strike down child labor laws, justified civil rights laws etc. I don't think striking those laws down required the commerce clause. After Wicker v. United States, that was just the easiest way to do it.

And I'm not sure what your trying to argue with regards to selling across state lines/necessary proper clause.

Necessary and proper clause was just as much behind New Deal issues as Commerce clause. It was a big justification, and necessary and proper clause seems more applicable in general because it deals with the more fringe uses of federal power.

Only Wicker v. US I can find is from 1995....do you mean Wicker v Hoppock?

If health insurance was available cross-lines it would easily fall under something effecting inter-state commerce. And therefore open to federal regulation.

By majority opinion I mean majority opinion. The rationale behind said court decision. That is a document. Still good law etc. refers to if it is still part of common law and therefore applicable when making a defense correct? I am not a lawyer, but I know when the Supreme Court offers the reason for its decision those are you know the majority opinion or dissenting. That.

So the most obvious version of withholding tax I think most people here know is when the government takes taxes from your paycheck right? That is really something that needs to be warranted the same way that Obama would originally push a Cadillac tax to support x$ of the health care bill.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Oopsie. It was Wickard v. Filburn.

3rd Paragraph: Your right, but never has the SCOTUS held that congress can compel commerce.

4th Paragraph: Gibbons v. Ogden, Carter v. Carter Coal Co.

5th Paragraph: Yes.

[Rhinox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqtyvn7OVw




but steve King won't stand for injustices. If he sees an Injustices being levied about a group of people he will stomp it out!! even if those people happen to be healthcare lobbyists!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_478493.html

[Rockstaru]

3rd Paragraph: Your right, but never has the SCOTUS held that congress can compel commerce.

EVERYTHING YOU SAY NOW IS INVALID.

[Rhinox]

to be fair this is why lawyers have secretaries. To catch retarded typo's before you submit legal briefs.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

God knows I need one.

[Rockstaru]

to be fair this is why lawyers have secretaries. To catch retarded typo's before you submit legal briefs.

A whoosh and a fail.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

wasn't in the magna carta, not hearing any of it

[Rhinox]

Wow. Someone actually fell for that lol