dagblog - Comments for "The Supremes approved the mandate"

Yes (rhetorical question,

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:52:13 +0000

In reply to You mean like this from Ben

Yes (rhetorical question, though, I realize...).

Yeah my headline was wrong.

Flavius — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 01:02:38 +0000

In reply to This is good on understanding

Yeah my headline was wrong. At that point the A item was getting the news from Aix to Ghent- oops that was a different edition.

Well there was

There will be one piece of tallow with a flaming wick and more than that if...........

Those damn limeys were actually rowing

mandate approved

was short hand for that. Wrong of course, but that's often true of my vaporings

One of the stories yahoo.com

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:04:14 +0000

In reply to The Supremes approved the mandate

One of the stories yahoo.com news is featuring is speculation about whether a Romney Administration would repeal Obamacare. If elected, what he very possibly could do, and very possibly would do in my view, would be to either sabotage, or cherry pick (implementing only the provisions his Administration likes) its implementation through the regulatory and executive branch implementation processes. Even IF the GOP wins back the Senate, IF Democrats were willing to filibuster a repeal attempt, 60 votes would be needed--unless repeal supporters tried to accomplish that using the reconciliation process, which is filibuster-proof.

Did you not read the opinion,

Resistance — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:37:54 +0000

In reply to If Congress were to mandate

Did you not read the opinion, or did not get the sense of it?

“Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance,.......... not whether it can.” Chief Justice Roberts

Whether it can what ? Has it "PROPERLY EXERCISED"

Obama and the Congress were seeking more power, than the framers of the Constitution stated, when they said “this is the power granted by the people and no more”

Obama and the Congress weren’t satisfied with the "properly exercised taxing power, to encourage purchasing health insurance;" they already had the ability to tax,

Obama and the Congress wanted the ability to MANDATE that EVERYONE BUY. That’s more than taxing power, it’s an abuse of the commerce clause.

What's next, everyone should vote or be fined? Everyone should buy and wear a flag lapel or be fined? Everyone should eat broccoli or be fined?

That abusive power grab, incited those who agree, the Federal Government of WE the people, has limitations.

That incitement, rallied the Tea party and the democrats lost the midterms.

We don’t need another future President or Congress, to use this precedent mandate, to extend to itself more power.

Bush grabbed more than he should have, why let Obama grab more; until finally the Constitution is null and void ?

WE don’t want to address in the future, a law of unintended consequences, because we failed to stop this MANDATE

We didn’t need a mandate.

TAKE THE CAPS OFF, all income, to support ~~ACA .~~ Medicare minimum for all. That’s a taxing issue, a power already granted by the Constitution.

If the rich, want more than the minimum; let them purchase a separate policy. That's commerce.

A taxation with representation, not a forced mandate.

Yes if Obama hadn't fought

Flavius — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:59:48 +0000

In reply to OBAMA OVERREACHED Congress

Yes if Obama hadn't fought for the ACA he could have done other things.I don't think the Nation as a whole would have.

Like others here you probably overestimate what the Dem's "majority"(including Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman) could have achieved during the six months between the Minnesota election decision and that in Mass .

That site is spectacular, I

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:28 +0000

In reply to You mean like this from Ben

That site is spectacular, I haven't laughed so much since well, a day or two again, when I watched Louis CK tell Leno he was the Weirdest looking man on the face of the earth.

If Congress were to mandate

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:54:33 +0000

In reply to OBAMA OVERREACHED Congress

If Congress were to mandate Medicare for all, why in your mind would that be an unobjectionable, friendly mandate, vs. the mandate incorporated into ACA? Is your objection to Congress mandating health insurance coverage for everyone? To Congress mandating that individuals purchase health insurance from, in many cases, private for-profit providers?

OBAMA OVERREACHED Congress

Resistance — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:46:29 +0000

In reply to Now the Wall Street Journal

OBAMA OVERREACHED

Congress had the power to tax all along, they were not entitled to a New Federal power

Instead of focusing the nations attention on job creation, or underwater homeowners WE were distracted on "making a mountain out of a mole hill"

Obamas signature plan; an Obama administration, trying to grab more power, than that granted by the Constitution.

When the democrats were in the majority, they could have just raised taxes, by ending the Bush tax cuts, and expanded a program, already in place "MEDICARE FOR ALL"

Imagine how much better off the country would have been, with Congressional cooperation, with Republicans being the minority of course ? Maybe the Democrats, wouldn't have lost at the mid terms; had Obama not overreached?

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/supremes-approved-mandate-14111#comment-158254

"The Framers gave Congress

Resistance — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:43:40 +0000

In reply to The Supremes approved the mandate

"The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.....

The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”.....

Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance,..........

not whether it can.

Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-excerpts-from-chief-justice-robertss-opinion-on-healthcare-reform-20120628,0,5775958.story?page=2&track=rss

Well reasoned.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

You mean like this from Ben

NCD — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:13:07 +0000

In reply to The sheer intensity of winger

You mean like this from Ben Shapiro, syndicated columnist, bestselling author, Harvard Law grad, Breitbart.com Editor-At-Large, Freedom Center Shillman Journalism Fellow:

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

Or this:

Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) office: “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional...." Sen. Rand Paul.

More on reaction in Jesusland at Driftglass.