Probably not, given that no-one seems to have thought about the taxation powers angleOriginally Posted by Enoch the Red
Probably not, given that no-one seems to have thought about the taxation powers angle
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is where I disagree. Right != Constitutional.
Right is a subjective terminology for judgements.
Constitutional is what is currently permitted by the constitution.
The words are not interchangeable. Same as I said before about legal or illegal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, illegal doesn't make it wrong. Something can be constitutional and wrong (slavery and the Dred Scott) or unconstitutional and right (drinking and the 18th amendment).
Nor is the constitution immutable. If you disagree with something being unconstitutional (or vice-versa) there are ways to change that.
You can talk about something being morally right or wrong all you want. That is not and never has been the sort of question the Court is supposed to address. As I said, you can say you dislike a ruling all you want. Right or wrong has one meaning in the context of the Court's decision, one meaning in light of the topic it is their purpose to address. And that is synonymous with "constitutional." You want to say right or wrong about anything else and you need to make an explicit qualifier because whatever it is, it's not what the Court is talking about and it's not something any of us should be expected to guess at. Constitutional and unconstitutional are not the same as legal and illegal as you want to use them because in ever single circumstance the Court is being asked to decide between two or more different and opposing positions, something which is manifestly not the case when addressing legality.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I didn't talk about morally right or wrong, I talked about viewing something as right or wrong.
Just because there are different and opposing positions does not negate what I said - if there were not different and opposing positions in the first place it wouldn't be up for debate.
How do you define inconstitutional such that the SCOTUS can rule something as constitutional yet you say it is constitutional? How do you determine it?
Why? It is neither interesting nor important. Justices change their minds while they conference and deliberate before making a ruling. Happens all the time. It is somewhat amusing that the dissenting judges apparently decided to put out the opinion Roberts wrote while he was on their side as their primary opinion and that Roberts hence effectively wrote both the ruling and the dissent but it doesn't mean anything. It's certainly not the first time that justices kept an opinion written by a colleague who later switched sides
That blurb is less interesting or important than what's in the news now, dissecting when and why Roberts made his decision...with "leaks" coming from people close to the court.I'm surprised you haven't commented about that yet, since you follow SCOTUS closely.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 07-04-2012 at 01:54 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Of which morally right and wrong was an example. The terms do not have meaning without context Rand. Right or wrong in what way? And there is only one context addressed in a SCOTUS decision.
You're going to have to rephrase or elaborate because I don't understand the question you're asking.How do you define inconstitutional such that the SCOTUS can rule something as constitutional yet you say it is constitutional? How do you determine it?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Some people here are forcing me to reanalyze the term supreme.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Typo, meant to write: How do you define inconstitutional such that the SCOTUS can rule something as constitutional yet you say it is inconstitutional? How do you determine it?
IE I'm saying that after SCOTUS has ruled something as constitutional then it is (like it or not) for the time being constitutional. You're disputing that. In which case, how do you define something to be inconstitutional even after SCOTUS have ruled otherwise? Who or how do you determine that?
I'm not disputing that, strictly speaking. I've said from the beginning that the perspective that the Court determines constitutionality *that by the act of making a ruling it makes something constitutional or unconstitutional* is perfectly valid and I wasn't about to declare it wrong. From that perspective constitutionality is in fact derived from the whim/will of the court. But that's not the only valid perspective and it's not the "official" view. This is not the case for other perspectives. The dominant one has constitutionality sourced in the text. This naturally requires interpretation. But as most of us realize, an interpretation is not reality. Just because the Court ruled a particular way, made a particular interpretation, does not mean that interpretation is an accurate reflection of the text or its intended meaning. The accurate interpretation, whatever that is, is still there and so the court's ruling is wrong, it's unconstitutional. That doesn't prevent the Court's ruling from having the force of law *within the known limitations that the Court is, in reality, limited entirely to "moral authority" and is completely reliant on the other branches of government and on the public to adhere to its rulings* what the true constitutional position is doesn't necessarily matter much if those agents which wield formal or informal power are all or mostly following a different standard
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So I suppose it depends upon if you view constitutionality as objective or subjective?
Is 2+2 math or is it a visual representation? You could, if you chose, portray each of the perspectives I've discussed as subjective. There is no "either/or" here. You can successfully understand and explain the Court and constitutionality both ways *and in other ways*
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I've been commenting on the political commentary surrounding the court decision.
Yeah, it was 'stunning' because it's fear mongering based on false facts. People are still falling for that rallying cry meant to gin up their base. I've already posted links from non-partisan analyst groups showing that our politics has become more conservative over time, as have judiciary rulings. Even Reagan and Poppy Bush wouldn't have made it through today's (R) primaries, as too moderate or 'conciliatory', and not "true Conservatives".Lewk and I argue about this all the time....when he operates under the assumption that the US is being 'over-taken' by Lib'ruls and freedom haters, despite data to the contrary.
Fuzzy, being our resident expert on SCOTUS, has likely seen the same comparisons made. Justices once considered "liberal" in the 50's-60's are more likely considered "moderate" by today's standards. Look, I don't have an axe to grind against any particular name in politics. But when anyone starts comparing this election to 1862, or revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.....when they claim this is a "massive government conspiracy to take-over healthcare"....when they equate any responsible Gun Control with trying to undo the Second Amendment.....yeah, that's political commentary. And political spin.
Yeah, but it's got very little to do with the overall pattern you're alleging. Brandeis made note of it near the end of his time on the court back in the '30s. At one point he'd been considered a legal champion of the Left, because he fought against excessive/oppressive government actions. By the end of his time on the Court, during the New Deal, he was being lambasted as a reactionary conservative. His jurisprudence hadn't changed he was still opposing government overreach, but public opinion about what the government should be doing had undergone a radical reversal. Hugo Black, one of the most vocal members of the Warren Court could speak to the same thing though I can't recall now if he ever talked about it. The actions our political sides sponsor shift back and forth over the decades. They alternate who pushes the same positions. Protectionism is a right-wing policy, then a left-wing one, and then back again. Same thing with Civil Rights, or any of a host of other issues. With justices serving 10-20, in some cases even 30 years on the Supreme Court, they serve as a useful contrasting backdrop highlighting these changes since their legal reasoning and favored frameworks are usually far more stable than the politics of the general public.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And this is different from the Left claiming that the Right is buying politicians and corporations as people are now going to be writing legislation all thanks to Citizens United, how? That somehow, the Tea Party and it's monied backers are destroying democracy and the democratic process, leading the government to be controlled by shadowy corporations and the Koch brothers?I've been commenting on the political commentary surrounding the court decision.
Oh, that's right, you agree with the one and not the other.
What false facts? That Rand Paul believes the ruling to be counter to what the constitution says? So did four other Supreme Court justices. Is that stunning also?Yeah, it was 'stunning' because it's fear mongering based on false facts. People are still falling for that rallying cry meant to gin up their base. I've already posted links from non-partisan analyst groups showing that our politics has become more conservative over time, as have judiciary rulings. Even Reagan and Poppy Bush wouldn't have made it through today's (R) primaries, as too moderate or 'conciliatory', and not "true Conservatives".
A politician participating in political commentary and political spin? Say it ain't so.Fuzzy, being our resident expert on SCOTUS, has likely seen the same comparisons made. Justices once considered "liberal" in the 50's-60's are more likely considered "moderate" by today's standards. Look, I don't have an axe to grind against any particular name in politics. But when anyone starts comparing this election to 1862, or revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.....when they claim this is a "massive government conspiracy to take-over healthcare"....when they equate any responsible Gun Control with trying to undo the Second Amendment.....yeah, that's political commentary. And political spin.
Again, you aren't opposed to commentary or spin, you are opposed to commentary and spin when they violate your sacred cows. If you acknowledged as much instead of trying to convince us you are sitting above the fray as some objective third party you would be seen as a far more honest poster.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-06-2012 at 05:14 AM.
I'm not aware of the "Left" making Armageddon-style commentary, at least not in commonly used news media, or even 'left-leaning' sources. Sure, there are plenty of complaints about the Citizens United decision, how our elections are funded, conflicts of interest, money as a corruptible force....complaints made by left, right, middle, (R), (D), (I)....
Those opinions don't come off sounding as if it's the End of the US as we know it.....The End of Liberty and Freedom!....suggesting we'll wake up 11/07/2012 and not recognize our country, if Obama is re-elected, because we'll be a Socialist State. The only groups making those claims, and using them as political spin, come from the "Right" and particularly the Tea Party. Their names are known all over the world ya know. Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich are just a few of the politicians. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or anyone from Fox News examples in media, even Murdoch's WSJ or Forbes join in that rhetoric. Surely you've noticed.
Insinuating the US has been taken over by Lib'ruls, or become less Conservative. That's false, it's a myth used to inspire fear. Look no further than the Republican Party primaries for proof that conservatism is alive and well, as the Republican party pandered to the most-extreme and booted out any "moderate" as a RHINO.What false facts? That Rand Paul believes the ruling to be counter to what the constitution says? So did four other Supreme Court justices. Is that stunning also?
Suggesting that the Court has opened the way for teh gummint to now go after your guns, possibly taxing them into oblivion, taking away constitutional rights, undoing the 2nd Amendment....as if it's a vast left wing conspiracy to KILL AMERICA. If you've got examples like that from the "Left" I'll be happy to read them, but you'll have a hard time claiming the "Left" has become as extreme as the "Right" has. That would mean we've got Communists with enough influence within the (D) party, or its leadership, to direct their policy platforms. Oh wait, that claim has already been made by a (R) legislator.
Dude, you're using an offense/defense posting tactic, sprinkled with some snarky sarcasm, that isn't much better than what you say I'm doing dishonestly.A politician participating in political commentary and political spin? Say it ain't so.
Again, you aren't opposed to commentary or spin, you are opposed to commentary and spin when they violate your sacred cows. If you acknowledged as much instead of trying to convince us you are sitting above the fray as some objective third party you would be seen as a far more honest poster.
Uh...I was referring to the private STD and LTD line of products.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
My point was that we are forced to buy a basic (government supplied) disability insurance plan, funded through taxes. We can supplement it if we wish, of course, by adding private short/long term disability insurance. But the basics are covered by, well, a mandate.
The only difference between SSDI and PPACA is that PPACA doesn't make the government supply the insurance plans, but leaves it up to the private sector. Isn't this better than SSDI?
Should the Government force me to by STD and LTD coverage (the latter offsets SSDI payments from their benefits anyway) in addition to SSDI being there? Trust me, in my line of work...it would set me up for life if it did.
After all if we can force people to by medical insurance why not supplemental Disability?
(And aside from precedent, SSDI isn't necessarily good law either).
Last edited by Veldan Rath; 07-10-2012 at 09:17 PM. Reason: Didn't need to be snarky
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Maybe the problem lies with having a line of products based on private Sexually Transmitted Diseases?
I don't think you addressed the point. Is SS unconstitutional? (Well maybe a bad example...) Can the government tax behaviors they want to curb? If yes then this is just another behavior they want to curb (not having health insurance). Its an idiotic law but arguing that its not a tax and therefore unconstitutional doesn't hold much weight the more I look at it.
Just saw this now. The government could require you to buy supplemental coverage (though in this context, since there's already a universal program in place, they'd probably just expand the program's benefits). Why not? It's just an extension of the basic idea of SSDI anyways.
So you are hip to the Government forcing me into a contract with a 3rd party?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
If by 'forcing', you mean providing a financial penalty (enforceable by the law) if you don't, then yes. I don't understand why it's any worse than the government forcing you to buy a service through them directly. In fact, it might even be better from an economics perspective, since there's greater choice in the private sector.
Of course not. But what is a good law or a bad law doesn't have much to do if something is constitutional.
I didn't say it worse, it sucks less wiggin...doesn't mean it's rainbows and love hugs.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
And?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
If its a tax the government can take it based on the constitution.
Do you already have health insurance? Y/N
If yes--then you're not being "forced" into anything new. However, your premiums (and taxes) include a hidden 'contract' that 'forces' you to pay for the uninsured, the 4th party. 50 million +/- uninsured who still access medical care, often at late stages of disease that adds another 'hidden cost'.
If no--then wouldn't you want to be insured? Not because of a mandate, or a tax, but because it's become a necessity in the 21st century to afford care (and avoid medical bankruptcy too)?
If buying that insurance as an individual meant using more than 20% of your income, wouldn't you want a reduced premium or subsidy -- the kind employers have offered their employees for decades in lieu of higher wages? Wouldn't you want access to new interstate insurance exchanges offering cut-rate plans? And wouldn't it be nice if you could take that policy with you wherever you go (portability), and not lose coverage if you actually use it when you're sick (pre-existing exclusions, rescissions, lifetime caps)?
If you're an employer, especially a small business employer, wouldn't you want to offer premium assistance to attract the best workers, at rates affordable enough to compete with the big fish? And wouldn't you want to use the same tax deductions as the big fish?
Uhh...duh?
I as much said so earlier.
This is were the government will keep wheedling more and more into our lives. Even if they fail to abuse the Commerce Clause (they can regulate, NOT compel), they will use the tax power to then do what ever they want...adding MORE complexity to the tax code. HOORAY!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
1. Irrelevant
2. None of your (or the Federal Government's!) business?? This is the point you keep missing.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote