[OAW]

A U.S. judge on Thursday upheld a key part of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law that requires Americans to obtain coverage, rejecting a challenge by a conservative interest group.

The Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit in Michigan the day Obama signed it into law. It argued that the provision requiring Americans buy coverage by 2014 under threat of penalty was beyond Congress' authority and an unconstitutional tax.

U.S. District Judge George Steeh ruled that Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore could also impose a penalty for those who failed to obtain health insurance.

Steeh said Congress adopted the minimum coverage provision to address the growing costs of healthcare coverage and provide an avenue for more Americans to be covered.

"The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal," he wrote in a 20-page decision.

US judge upholds key part of Obama healthcare law | Reuters

Begun, the healthcare war has.

OAW

[smacintush]

Your thread titling scheme bugs me…don't know why.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Your thread titling scheme bugs me…don't know why.

Thanks for sharing.

But seriously, the Constitutionality of the individual mandate to have health insurance is being challenged across the country. This is the first (but probably not the last) ruling on the matter. So where does it go from here? Will it be upheld on appeal? Will it make it all the way to the Supreme Court? From a cost containment perspective it makes sense to spread the risk around the largest pool possible ... but what about those that simply feel they are healthy and have a low risk and would rather use those funds for something else?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Your thread titling scheme bugs me…don't know why.

It reeks of Unoriginality, Repetitiveness, & General Thread Title Hackery?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So where does it go from here?

Civil war.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Your thread titling scheme bugs me…don't know why.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It reeks of Unoriginality, Repetitiveness, & General Thread Title Hackery?

An old saying about opinions and assholes comes to mind .... don't know why.

OAW

[turtle777]

Nullification, and possibly civil war, if the Federal government keeps insisting that it beats states.

At the moment, we are NOT a united States anymore.

Good interview regarding this topic:
FSN In Depth: Thomas E Woods Jr, Nullification | FINANCIAL SENSE

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Nullification, and possibly civil war, if the Federal government keeps insisting that it beats states.

At the moment, we are NOT a united States anymore.

Good interview regarding this topic:
FSN In Depth: Thomas E Woods Jr, Nullification | FINANCIAL SENSE

-t

I contend that that ship has sailed. This notion that the United States is a union of sovereign states is rather quaint and antiquated. This is not the 1800s. People don't think of themselves primarily as Kansans and Virginians and Rhode Islanders anymore. (Texans being a notable exception ). People primarily think of themselves as Americans. So the "State" is just another political subdivision in the minds of the average American. No different than a "County" or a "City".

Having said that, to suggest that there will be "civil war" if the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate in the healthcare reform legislation is Constitutional (or not) is a tad bit hyperbolic, n'est-ce pas? Seriously ... if someone has an attitude about being required to pay for health insurance they don't want ... do you really think that it'll be cool if the State government forced him to do it but the sky would be falling if the Federal government forced him to do it?

That's like saying that a biker who doesn't want to wear a helmet is going to be merely annoyed if the Nevada legislature says he has to ... but he'll be ready to take up arms if the US Congress says he has to .... even though the penalty for noncompliance is essentially the same regardless.

OAW

[turtle777]

The (success story of the) United Staes are done if the States don't regain their sovereignty.

Really, independent States is what made the US successful. There are plenty of mediocre Republics already, I don't see how a strong Federal government adds any value. And everyone clearly sees how a runaway Federal government is a big burden.

-t

[Shaddim]

I'm wondering what will happen when the SCOTUS rules that it's unconstitutional.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Seriously ... if someone has an attitude about being required to pay for health insurance they don't want ... do you really think that it'll be cool if the State government forced him to do it but the sky would be falling if the Federal government forced him to do it?

Powers no specifically granted to the federal government and also not denied to the States by the constitution are reserved for the States and the people.

There's nothing in there granting the feds power to mandate someone buy an insurance policy. (And stretching the commerce clause to near breaking point is more of the same sketchy crap we've seen before to try and sneak in power grabs like this).

Meanwhile, there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits States from doing the same if they so chose. That's the difference.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm wondering what will happen when the SCOTUS rules that it's unconstitutional.

Barack will demagogue the issue just like he did with Citizens United. He will accuse them of judicial activism or something similar. He will really, REALLY want to pass something in its place for all of our sakes because without his legislation the sick, the elderly and children will die at the hands of unfeeling insurance companies.

Of course he won't get what he wants out of the Republican congress so he will use the horrible "damage" the activist, ideologue Supreme Court and the "party of no" caused as a wedge in the 2012 election.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Remember, Democrats can't spell.

It's the Party of Know.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[the United States Congress shall have power] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Wow, yes of course. I read that as: if the federal government wants the power to mandate you shove a red hot poker down your throat, then they can, because you know, everything is in the commerce clause!

You know, because 'among the several States' CLEARLY means: "if you live in a State, Congress gets to force you to do whatever we want you to do."

[ghporter]

I see a number of difficulties with this whole thing. First, the case was tried in the Eastern District of Michigan, a very limited area, and is so far applicable only to that district. Second, there are quite obvious political hooks in the judge's history: appointed by Clinton, graduate of a "progressive" law school, early work in rather politically stratified locale, etc.

Third, and I think most important, is that the judge, in stating the Commerce Clause allows requiring a particular kind of commerce to take place, ignored a number of issues. Not all insurance is sold by multistate corporations-the Commerce Clause has been held to not apply in many in-state issues. I doubt that there is a significant body of case law for actually requiring that certain types of interstate commerce take place in the first place (unlike state laws that require auto insurance, for example, because they simply deny authorization to operate a motor vehicle, and the penalty is assessed for operating a motor vehicle without state authorization). And he completely and totally ignores the biggest problem of all: mandating that everyone spend money on something without addressing how the people most in need of this type of insurance will manage to pay for it.

The "uninsured" problem is one of economics. People who can't afford health insurance have not bought it because they can't afford it. Passing a law that says "you have to buy this or we'll fine you" without addressing HOW people can afford to buy it in the first place was dumb. Upholding that part of the law without addressing this issue is idiotic.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's interesting and never brought up- because the commerce clause also mentions Indian tribes, how long before some wacko activist judge can claim that takes precedence over their sovereign rights on their reservations as well?

Here in Cali, the greedbags in Sacramento have been trying for ages to get their greedy paws on the hugely profitable gambling assets some of the tribes here run, because you know, it's only fair that after stealing their land and everything they had, now that 'the man' is broke, he should be able to break 100 year old treaties and steal anything else they've got as well. How long until some wacko 'discovers' that a broke and out of control Federal government can bend to commerce clause to screw over the same people again as well? Doing so was certainly profitable as hell for Team Big Gov in the past.

[BadKosh]

My neighbor went to his doctor. He was told he needed to see a specialist. Neighbor got appointment with a specialist, and wanted to pay cash, since the specialist wasn't covered under his plan, but was told that he couldn't. Against the new rules. More jerkdom from the Democrats who never read it before voting on it.

[ghporter]

Against the "new rules" to pay with legal tender? I would put a whole half-dollar on this being an issue of the specialist's office staff not understanding the "new rules." We are coming up fast on the final date for every health care practice to have fully implemented all HIPAA requirements for data security and privacy, and I predict tons of lawsuits shortly after that date-way too many practices haven't the faintest clue how to follow the law. It's not that it's complex in principle, but the details aren't what medical records and billing people have experience with, so it's hard for them.

[turtle777]

Do you really think congress couldn't make a mistake like that ?

We're talking more than 2,000 pages of unread legislation.

I'm not saying it's likely that this happened, but it's entirely possible.
We'll be surprised for years what kind of crap got pushed into the ObamaCare bill at last minute, and all the unintended consequences it will have.

-t

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

My neighbor went to his doctor. He was told he needed to see a specialist. Neighbor got appointment with a specialist, and wanted to pay cash, since the specialist wasn't covered under his plan, but was told that he couldn't. Against the new rules. More jerkdom from the Democrats who never read it before voting on it.

If your neighbor was on Medicare, it's been illegal a long time. No side deals, cash or otherwise, or the docs lose their Medicare privileges. That's supposed to help prevent them from taking advantage of folks who don't have coverage. Right......

This is what's being applied universally, I guess.

[Snow-i]

Um...how is that even legal?

Aren't all US currencies legal tender for all debts, public and private? Can someone please explain this to me?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Can someone please explain this to me?

That last election, two years ago, gave the heartless selfish jerk Democrats enough power to do anything they wanted without having to listen to the citizens. Those Jerks set the bar very low as to their staffs' intelligence or moral character, and those same staffers wrote all the expensive, ineffective bills the Democrats rammed through without reading. Blame it on the knee-jerk moderates and liberals who didn't do any research about Obama or his radical agenda, staff, advisors and background, and figured those warning you about it were wrong. After 2 years of this, are you happy? Perhaps the tax increases next year will convince you. The contract the Doctors have with the government is screwing them too, which is why some have left the field and some have decided not to handle Gov't insured patients any more. The Democrats sure did lots of thinking about the citizens huh!

[ort888]

Is that really how your brain works? REALLY? How can anyone refer to a year long struggle as a "ram through"?

Why does that term get used over and over and over and over again?

Is there some sort of internal republican memo going around that is trying to shape the collective consciousness?

Just keep repeating it and eventually enough people will start to believe it? Or maybe, just keep confusing the issue until no one even knows what the hell is going on?

This kind of crap is why I hate politics. It's all such a load of hyperbole and lowest common denominator HORSE SHIT.

On BOTH sides. Both sides are just as guilty.

The problem is that I tend to agree with one side of the horrible pandering nitwits more than the other group of horrible pandering nitwits. So what the hell are you going to do? What can you do?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Aren't all US currencies legal tender for all debts, public and private? Can someone please explain this to me?

It's legal tender, but it doesn't mean you have to accept it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

IHere in Cali, the greedbags in Sacramento have been trying for ages to get their greedy paws on the hugely profitable gambling assets some of the tribes here run, because you know, it's only fair that after stealing their land and everything they had, now that 'the man' is broke, he should be able to break 100 year old treaties and steal anything else they've got as well.

That was one of Schwarzenegger's platforms for running in California, taxing casino revenue. It was Gray Davis who approved the compact with Indians to allow them to expand and institute casino style gambling, and originally agreed to not tax them.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

That last election, two years ago, gave the heartless selfish jerk Democrats enough power to do anything they wanted without having to listen to the citizens. Those Jerks set the bar very low as to their staffs' intelligence or moral character, and those same staffers wrote all the expensive, ineffective bills the Democrats rammed through without reading. Blame it on the knee-jerk moderates and liberals who didn't do any research about Obama or his radical agenda, staff, advisors and background, and figured those warning you about it were wrong. After 2 years of this, are you happy? Perhaps the tax increases next year will convince you. The contract the Doctors have with the government is screwing them too, which is why some have left the field and some have decided not to handle Gov't insured patients any more. The Democrats sure did lots of thinking about the citizens huh!

I just want to get this straight, because I've never known you to have a biased opinion... are you saying that it's all the liberals' fault?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I just want to get this straight, because I've never known you to have a biased opinion... are you saying that it's all the liberals' fault?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

knee-jerk moderates

Nope. Look out, we've got a new scourge on the horizon!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Nope. Look out, we've got a new scourge on the horizon!

Damn moderates with their loud music and Dan Fogelberg.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Um...how is that even legal?

Aren't all US currencies legal tender for all debts, public and private? Can someone please explain this to me?

For Medicare, it's legal because it's in the contract that doctors agree to when they agree to accept Medicare. I guess that's how the Feds will translate it to everything else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That was one of Schwarzenegger's platforms for running in California, taxing casino revenue.

True, and Schwarzenegger has proven himself to be just as greedy as the rest of the Sacramento greedbags.

It was Gray Davis who approved the compact with Indians to allow them to expand and institute casino style gambling, and originally agreed to not tax them.

It wasn't up to Gray Davis to 'agree' not to tax Indian tribes- California has no right to go back on treaties that were signed a hundred years ago after governments raped the tribes the first time. Only a corrupt bunch of greedbags think they can 'agree' to something that's illegal for them to do in the first place, but then, right there I pretty much just defined government.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by finboy 

For Medicare, it's legal because it's in the contract that doctors agree to when they agree to accept Medicare. I guess that's how the Feds will translate it to everything else.

But the dollar is "legal tender for all debts public and private". In other words, you can't not accept cash for a debt. Can anyone shed some light on how they do this?

[ort888]

i don't know, but Apple just got in trouble for this with the iPad.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But the dollar is "legal tender for all debts public and private". In other words, you can't not accept cash for a debt. Can anyone shed some light on how they do this?

T,FTFY

You must accept it for a debt, but there is nothing forcing you to enter into the debt. A sale is not a debt until after it's agreed to.

[ghporter]

Yes, you can "not accept" cash. For example, the IRS does not accept cash for tax payments-there are exceptionally large and challenging security issues involved in processing more than a few thousand dollars worth of cash transactions. Per the Treasury Department: "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

The Medicare rule about "no cash payments" was instituted to rein in corrupt doctors who were taking cash from patients and billing Medicare for the entire amount anyway. It worked pretty well to do that, and it also wound up preventing some insurance fraud on the part of patients.

I was rather surprised that these "new rules" were simply application of OLD rules from Medicare. If this whole thing is going to be "Medicare for everybody, regardless of age," we are in for a really awful time.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It wasn't up to Gray Davis to 'agree' not to tax Indian tribes- California has no right to go back on treaties that were signed a hundred years ago after governments raped the tribes the first time. Only a corrupt bunch of greedbags think they can 'agree' to something that's illegal for them to do in the first place, but then, right there I pretty much just defined government.

According to the Supreme Court, it was up to Davis. I agree with you completely that the governor shouldn't have any say in what a sovereign nation does or doesn't do, however, I'm just stating that the SCOTUS' decision was that the Indian nations have to agree with the terms of the governor of the state if they're to conduct in business practices that are otherwise illegal in said state.

Since gambling is illegal in California, the Indian nations are obliged to agree with terms set by the governor, even if that includes taxing gambling revenue.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is that really how your brain works? REALLY? How can anyone refer to a year long struggle as a "ram through"?

The ramming through was a done deal, it was Reid & Pelosi's arm twisting and lying to members , and handing out big bucks on both sides to insure their votes. Orchestrated lying and smears are a trait of the democrats including your jack-ass president. First the unfounded rumor, then the puppet press repeats it over and over and the clueless believe it. You can observe Obama lying about the funding the repubs were supposedly getting from overseas, while the 'short attention' types on the left have already forgotten Charlie Trei and the ChiCom bucks taken by the Clinton campaign. Usually, when the dems claim the repubs are doing something bad, you can be sure the dems are the ones actually doing it.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Powers no specifically granted to the federal government and also not denied to the States by the constitution are reserved for the States and the people.

There's nothing in there granting the feds power to mandate someone buy an insurance policy. (And stretching the commerce clause to near breaking point is more of the same sketchy crap we've seen before to try and sneak in power grabs like this).

Meanwhile, there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits States from doing the same if they so chose. That's the difference.

You do realize that this is NOT addressing what I said right?

I wasn't taking issue with what the Constitution says or doesn't say with regard to the powers of the federal government. I know what it says and that is beside the point. You made the assertion that individual mandate in the healthcare reform legislation could lead to "civil war". I responded by saying that your statement was a bit hyperbolic. I even made an analogy as an example ....

Originally Posted by OAW

That's like saying that a biker who doesn't want to wear a helmet is going to be merely annoyed if the Nevada legislature says he has to ... but he'll be ready to take up arms if the US Congress says he has to .... even though the penalty for noncompliance is essentially the same regardless.

IOW I'm looking at your statement from a practical, real-world perspective ... not on the basis on Constitutional theory. And in the real world, if someone opposes legislation so strongly that they are willing to take up arms over it ... then that's how they feel. Regardless of the political entity that passed the law. Period. It's not going to be cool just because a State passed the law instead of the Federal Government.

Seriously ... do you think that someone who is "highly motivated" enough over the abortion issue to blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion providers would give 2 sh*ts if abortion were legalized as a result of State or Federal legislation?

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You do realize that this is NOT addressing what I said right?

I quoted what you said.

I wasn't taking issue with what the Constitution says or doesn't say with regard to the powers of the federal government. I know what it says and that is beside the point. You made the assertion that individual mandate in the healthcare reform legislation could lead to "civil war". I responded by saying that your statement was a bit hyperbolic. I even made an analogy as an example ....

I made no such assertion, you're confusing several different posts.

Since clearly it's too much of a hardship for you to merely scroll up two or three posts and follow what actually was said, you asked why someone wouldn't be cool with a Federal Government mandate, but would have to accept a similar State mandate.

Simple- the States are reserved such powers by the constitution. The Federal Government is not. It is -of course- exactly the point.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

According to the Supreme Court, it was up to Davis. I agree with you completely that the governor shouldn't have any say in what a sovereign nation does or doesn't do, however, I'm just stating that the SCOTUS' decision was that the Indian nations have to agree with the terms of the governor of the state if they're to conduct in business practices that are otherwise illegal in said state.

We're in agreement that a Governor shouldn't have any such power. I question that even the SCOTUS shouldn't either. It's inarguable that much of the entire nation exists at the original expense of Indian tribes that were pushed off their land to accomodate the expanding nation. Now the meager lands they have left, and any revenue sources they create for themselves on those lands, should be -IMHO- entirely left alone by the US government that was their #1 violator in the first place.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

i don't know, but Apple just got in trouble for this with the iPad.

They got into trouble only insofar as they got bad publicity for not accepting a woman's cash, after she had saved a long time. Up until relatively recently, one couldn't buy an iPhone for cash either, and it has nothing to do with legality. I'm reasonably sure Apple's lawyers researched this issue a long time ago.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I made no such assertion, you're confusing several different posts.

Since clearly it's too much of a hardship for you to merely scroll up two or three posts and follow what actually was said, you asked why someone wouldn't be cool with a Federal Government mandate, but would have to accept a similar State mandate.

Simple- the States are reserved such powers by the constitution. The Federal Government is not. It is -of course- exactly the point.

The point is Crash is that you chose to co-sign onto Turtle's statement. Based on that it appeared that you were buying into his "civil war" nonsense. And that's what I was responding to. I see that's not the case now so my bad on that.

In any event, my position remains the same. If a biker is bent out of shape over being forced to wear a helmet they aren't going to give a rat's ass about what political entity passed the law. Because at the end of the day they don't want to be forced to wear a helmet! The reality is that the average person is concerned with the question "How does this impact me?" waaaayyyyyy more than "Is this action by the federal government Constitutional?".

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

In any event, my position remains the same. If a biker is bent out of shape over being forced to wear a helmet they aren't going to give a rat's ass about what political entity passed the law. Because at the end of the day they don't want to be forced to wear a helmet! The reality is that the average person is concerned with the question "How does this impact me?" waaaayyyyyy more than "Is this action by the federal government Constitutional?".

While I sympathize with your thesis that abstract principles are less relevant than day-to-day restrictions, the granularity of those restrictions does matter in a day-to-day way. It stands to reason that those helmet-phobic bikers would be concentrated in the states that don't have helmet laws, not only because they would move there after the fact (vote with your feet), but also because state laws are passed by the people actually living in that state (vote with your... vote), and are likely to reflect their actual beliefs.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

We're in agreement that a Governor shouldn't have any such power. I question that even the SCOTUS shouldn't either. It's inarguable that much of the entire nation exists at the original expense of Indian tribes that were pushed off their land to accomodate the expanding nation. Now the meager lands they have left, and any revenue sources they create for themselves on those lands, should be -IMHO- entirely left alone by the US government that was their #1 violator in the first place.

I agree 100%.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

In any event, my position remains the same. If a biker is bent out of shape over being forced to wear a helmet they aren't going to give a rat's ass about what political entity passed the law. Because at the end of the day they don't want to be forced to wear a helmet! The reality is that the average person is concerned with the question "How does this impact me?" waaaayyyyyy more than "Is this action by the federal government Constitutional?".

OAW

You're merely inventing cartoon strawmen to make your claim. Meanwhile, in reality, millions of 'bikers' comply with state helmet laws. (We have them here in California, and a huge population of bikers who comply). If they don't want to wear a helmet, they can move to a state that doesn't require them. Like US said- you get to vote with your feet.

The state has every right to pass such laws- they're not prohibited by the constitution from doing so, nor is it a power specified for congress, therefore the states can reserve the right.

Your 'argument' against this seems to typical of the left's disdain for the constitution and constant efforts to get around it when gets in the way of your nanny state desires.

It essentially boils down to: "The average person doesn't know if it's constitutional or not, so why should we care if our elected officials do? Let them pass whatever they want, screw the constitution! Since some biker is ignorant of it, no one should be any the wiser!"

Sorry, but even if the 'average person' or your make believe biker doesn't know the limits of government power as defined by the constitution, that doesn't make those limits go away.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're merely inventing cartoon strawmen to make your claim. Meanwhile, in reality, millions of 'bikers' comply with state helmet laws. (We have them here in California, and a huge population of bikers who comply). If they don't want to wear a helmet, they can move to a state that doesn't require them. Like US said- you get to vote with your feet.

It's not a "strawman" ... it's an analogy. Legislation that mandates the PURCHASE of and the REQUIREMENT to wear a helmet is the exact same principle as legislation that mandates the PURCHASE of and the REQUIREMENT to carry health insurance. And what does "compliance" have to do with anything I said? Surely you will agree that millions of Americans "comply" with federal legislation that you would deem unconstitutional? Right?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The state has every right to pass such laws- they're not prohibited by the constitution from doing so, nor is it a power specified for congress, therefore the states can reserve the right.

As usual .... arguing a point that is not in dispute.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your 'argument' against this seems to typical of the left's disdain for the constitution and constant efforts to get around it when gets in the way of your nanny state desires.

And here is where you demonstrate that you are so consumed with ideology that the fundamental point still hasn't registered with you. The point I was making was that a biker (and just so we are clear I'm talking about motorcycles) who doesn't want to wear a helmet considers such legislation to be a "nanny state law"! And that fact that it was the STATE that passed the law instead of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doesn't change that assessment a single bit.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It essentially boils down to: "The average person doesn't know if it's constitutional or not, so why should we care if our elected officials do? Let them pass whatever they want, screw the constitution! Since some biker is ignorant of it, no one should be any the wiser!"

Sorry, but even if the 'average person' or your make believe biker doesn't know the limits of government power as defined by the constitution, that doesn't make those limits go away.

No. That's not what I'm saying. That's what YOU are saying. My point here is simple. People who oppose biker helmet laws oppose it. Period. Just because a STATE passes the law doesn't lessen that opposition. Similarly, people who oppose the individual mandate for health insurance oppose it. Period. If they don't want the government requiring them to carry insurance then the particular level of government that's doing so is utterly irrelevant.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If they don't want the government requiring them to carry insurance then the particular level of government that's doing so is utterly irrelevant.

Wrong. Still relevant. Read my last post.

State level means compromise, live and let live, a niche for every ideology. Federal level means no compromise, all or nothing, my way or the highway. You purport to argue the position of practicality over principle, but your solution is the least practical and the most staunchly principled. Compromise will almost always be the road of practicality, but it is what you are currently opposed to. Why is that?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wrong. Still relevant. Read my last post.

State level means compromise, live and let live, a niche for every ideology. Federal level means no compromise, all or nothing, my way or the highway. You purport to argue the position of practicality over principle, but your solution is the least practical and the most staunchly principled. Compromise will almost always be the road of practicality, but it is what you are currently opposed to. Why is that?

I fail to see how "If you don't like it you can always move to another state" is any less "my way or the highway" than "If you don't like it you can always leave the country". People in the US have freedom of movement. They can move across the country or out of the country anytime they desire. And at the end of the day, moving out of a state to be around people of "like minded ideology" doesn't appear to be in the Top 15 Reasons Why People Move.

You are also assuming that the population of states are going to organize themselves around like minded ideologies. And that simply isn't the case for the most part ... especially in the more heavily populated states. The country is more organized around urban, suburban, and rural areas than it is ideology. That is rural voters in Georgia are going to be more "like minded" with rural voters in Louisiana than they will be with urban voters in Atlanta ... even though they are in the same state. As an example, in the state of Missouri the people voted against carry-and-conceal legislation in 1999 ... largely on the concerns of the heavy population centers (urban and suburban) in St. Louis and Kansas City. However, the Missouri General Assembly was dominated by representatives from the more rural (and Republican) areas of the state. So in 2003 they passed a law allowing it anyway. The Democratic Governor at the time vetoed the legislation, citing its previous defeat at the polls when put up to a popular vote. But his veto was subsequently overridden ... and that legislation is now law today. Now I don't cite that example to say that anything illegal or improper was done. It wasn't. I'm just using it as an example to show that "state level" doesn't necessarily mean "compromise". Because what's on the books today is at odds with the wishes of the majority in the state.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I fail to see how "If you don't like it you can always move to another state" is any less "my way or the highway" than "If you don't like it you can always leave the country".

I fail to see how you can think that, if you know the meaning of the word "less."

As an example, in the state of Missouri the people voted against carry-and-conceal legislation in 1999 ... largely on the concerns of the heavy population centers (urban and suburban) in St. Louis and Kansas City. However, the Missouri General Assembly was dominated by representatives from the more rural (and Republican) areas of the state. So in 2003 they passed a law allowing it anyway. The Democratic Governor at the time vetoed the legislation, citing its previous defeat at the polls when put up to a popular vote. But his veto was subsequently overridden ... and that legislation is now law today. Now I don't cite that example to say that anything illegal or improper was done. It wasn't. I'm just using it as an example to show that "state level" doesn't necessarily mean "compromise". Because what's on the books today is at odds with the wishes of the majority in the state.

For one thing, this is the exception, an error. Where do you think it is easier to correct errors like this, in a small(er) bureaucracy or a larg(er) one? For another thing, States do in fact have different laws from each other, so your denial of the existence of regional ideological differences is hollow. Third, where do you think it is easier to effect change, in local politics or in national politics? I think you noticed a recent thread about how people believe their vote in national politics is inherently meaningless, yet in state and local politics it is still worthwhile. Do you disagree with this widely held belief?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not a "strawman" ... it's an analogy. Legislation that mandates the PURCHASE of and the REQUIREMENT to wear a helmet is the exact same principle as legislation that mandates the PURCHASE of and the REQUIREMENT to carry health insurance.

No it isn't. A state can pass legislation that mandates the purchase of a product- unless you can find a prohibition in the constitution against it. If you can't, then they can do it.

Congress CANNOT mandate the purchase of a product unless you can find it expressly outlined in the constitution. Anything that isn't, is a reserved power of the states. This is like civics 101, but why am I not surprised that lefties would'n't know this stuff?

And here is where you demonstrate that you are so consumed with ideology that the fundamental point still hasn't registered with you. The point I was making was that a biker (and just so we are clear I'm talking about motorcycles) who doesn't want to wear a helmet considers such legislation to be a "nanny state law"! And that fact that it was the STATE that passed the law instead of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doesn't change that assessment a single bit.

And this is where you -as usual- demonstrate that all of this stuff is WAY beyond your meager comprehension skills. The fact that a state passed the law makes all the difference in the world- there's nothing unconstitutional about that. The Federal government on the other hand, would be operating illegally to mandate something that's not within it's power.

You're of course assuming that every 'biker' (again, your cartoon character strawman) is as ignorant as you are about what the government is and isn't allowed to do. But newsflash: just because the left are cheerleaders for Team BIg Government and don't know what's constitutional and what isn't, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. There are plenty of people that know perfectly well when a mandate from the federal government oversteps its authority, and therefore they've got every right to be pissed about it.

You on the other hand, clearly would let your dreamed of nanny state run roughshod over every possible limit placed on it, as long as you think you're getting something out of it. Because you know, separation of powers is just some old antiquated idea that the founders really meant as one big fill in the blank, so let's dream up a new 'living breathing' definition that basically boils down to: "It means whatever TEAM BIG GOVERNMENT WANTS it to mean... today. Tomorrow it'll mean something else when there's some other power we want to grab."

People who oppose biker helmet laws oppose it. Period. Just because a STATE passes the law doesn't lessen that opposition. Similarly, people who oppose the individual mandate for health insurance oppose it. Period. If they don't want the government requiring them to carry insurance then the particular level of government that's doing so is utterly irrelevant.

You're confusing two issues, purposefully of course in your usual smokescreen pattern.
People can oppose a state mandate, even when it's constitutional, simply because it's a ROTTEN IDEA!

People can also oppose an unconstitutional mandate by the Federal government because it's both a ROTTEN IDEA, AND UNCONSTITIONAL which only adds to the rottenness!

You're simply trying to float that because something happens to be both, everyone is as ignorant about the constitutional part of it as you are. You're simply making that up, using some cartoon character you imagined to illustrate it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who understand their State has certain rights, and the Federal government has certain rights, and that there are LIMITS on both. When an out of control arrogant government thinks -as you clearly do- that everyone is ignorant to those limits and therefore can just do whatever they please- then there IS the great possibility of massive public anger. As there should be when the federal government oversteps its limits.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For one thing, this is the exception, an error. Where do you think it is easier to correct errors like this, in a small(er) bureaucracy or a larg(er) one?

Stay tuned. We'll get to that in a minute.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For another thing, States do in fact have different laws from each other, so your denial of the existence of regional ideological differences is hollow.

I never said states didn't have different laws.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Third, where do you think it is easier to effect change, in local politics or in national politics? I think you noticed a recent thread about how people believe their vote in national politics is inherently meaningless, yet in state and local politics it is still worthwhile. Do you disagree with this widely held belief?

To answer you question ... local. Now having said that, let's contrast political theory with actual behavior shall we? Why is it that the average American would be hard pressed to identify his or her State Rep or State Senator? Let alone indicate what state district they are in? Why is the voter participation rate historically much lower in non-Presidential elections? So indeed ... political theory states that state and local politics is where the real action is at. But people's actual political behavior shows that the higher the office ... the higher the voter participation rate. Federal elections generate a higher turnout than State elections. And State elections generate a higher turnout than County and Local elections. (And nobody votes for the judicial elections ... and if they do they just vote to retain him/her because nobody knows (or generally cares) who the hell they are. )

So my position here is not to say that the States aren't important. But I do believe ship has sailed on this notion of the US being a collection of "sovereign states" with a weak central government. People think of themselves as Americans first ... state residents second. Not the other way around.

OAW