I completely support your position on the mandatory part of the health care law. My guess is that a judge will rule that congress can undue it and won't rule it is unconstitutional-but that's from a pretty superficial study. The burden on the states is high in that case. I really mean it when I think the issue deserves a debate, and if there were such a thread, I would probably participate and be more on your side than you think. However....to suggest that:
1) Christine O'Donnell not knowing what the first amendment says and
2) the government's constitutional position on healthcare
are equivalent dumbfuckery is a stretch, IMO. You have smart lawyers on both sides of the health care issue. Obama himself was a law professor at Chicago, and the justice department will have a heap of case law to back up their claim (as will the states). Chrisine O'Donnell has no chance of winning, and I'm sure you're right there. But let's keep the comparisons a bit more honest...
OK, that wasn't honest...but it's funny. And probably closer to an accurate comparison
politbureau wrote:Democrats are concerned about the threat that Christine O'Donnell's ignorance of the Constitution poses to society were she to be elected. Since she's behind 20 percentage points in the polls that's not a very likely threat. I'm merely pointing out that it's relevant in that context to also be concerned about misuse of the Constitution by those already in power because abuse of Constitutional power poses a far greater threat to society than ignorance of the Constitution, in my opinion. Specifically, a government that argues that because some individual choice (whether or not to purchase health care coverage) has a significant economic effect on society that gives it the right under the Commerce Clause to dictate what individuals do.
If that principle is valid then I can think of many other individual choices which have a far greater economic effect on society: whether or not to have children, where to reside, what education to attain, what profession to pursue . . . . Why wouldn't government under the same Commerce Clause principle then have the power to dictate those choices too if it wanted to?
Point being then that Democrats can be just as cuckoo, if not more so, than Republicans in the same context.
Now back to your regularly scheduled party line. I won't say anymore on the issue.