Republicans Need Cuckoo part II

[politbureau]

And income tax too.

That implication sounds familiar but it's been a while since I've had it come at me from the left rather than from the right: government is always right and anyone who questions government policies is a nut.

Maybe you should try reading the Constitution. There in the back, something called the Sixteenth Amendment.

As an expert on the U.S. Constitution maybe you can explain how the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government the right to force you to pay that penalty you'll be paying to the IRS simply because you can no longer afford health care. Then maybe McCoy can follow up with an explanation why he equates anyone who questions whether such a connection actually exists with nutty anti-income-tax extremists.

[Gao Bohan]

As an expert on the U.S. Constitution

I never claimed to be an expert on the U.S. Constitution. But I've read it and I know the 16th Amendment gives the government the right to levy an income tax. Though I'd prefer that go away and be replaced with a federal sales tax that would be far cheaper and easier to comply with.

maybe you can explain how the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government the right to force you to pay that penalty you'll be paying to the IRS simply because you can no longer afford health care.

And maybe you should read my posts.

I have no idea if the purchase mandate is Constitutional.

[politbureau]

Maybe you should read my posts and identify where I even remotely questioned the validity of the 16th Amendment or the right of the Federal government to levy an income tax. You might then want to read up on the Commerce Clause and the Administration's arguments concerning the Commerce Clause being the justification for your current woes. Makes for some interesting -- and enlightening -- reading that even someone with only a layperson's understanding of the Constitution should find troubling.

[suiyuan31]

Hello? 911? I'd like to report a hijacking.....No, not a plane-a forumosa thread.

Why don't you guys start a thread on this? The constitutionality of the health care bill is a great topic that deserves a close look, and since a judge recently ruled that the states have a case against the government, it will be very easy to find what the arguments of each side are and discuss them. Hard to see where this fits into "Republicans Need Cuckoo."...oh wait, here it is:

[politbureau]

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.

[Dr. McCoy]

Yes, but I posit that the Democrats don't need cuckoo.

[Chris]

The Republicans are bringing back the old "death panels" lie again in an attempt to scare people into voting for them.

Filthy, disgusting liars.

[suiyuan31]

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

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.

[Jack Burton]

You might then want to read up on the Commerce Clause

it's interesting, the commerce clause usually is invoked by the courts, not by the executive branch. I think it's hard to blame the current administration; that ship sailed long ago with FDR, New Deal, etc. (but the commerce clause is pretty weak turf IMO).

Is anyone suing the government alleging the act is unconstitutional? I'd like to know where that is going through the courts. I'm told by my friend that a suit in Michigan has already been ruled by the court as constitutional, though who know if that will go up to the S.Ct.

[Chris]

Republicans believe child marriage is a good thing.

Do we really want people like this running the US?