[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Under what law did your lawmakers decide what was and wasn't "protected speech"? Wouldn't they, at that particular point in time, have breached the constitution?

No. U.S. law understands a fundamental difference between speech which directly advocates or marshals action, and speech which advocates ideas. Where, in the case of the former, the speech threatens injury to others or interference in a fundamental way with the operation of the government, it can be restricted on the principle that the public expects the government to protect an environment in which everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue their ambitions. Is this an abridgment of speech, or of action? The line is admittedly blurry, but real life is complicated, and this is the balance that to me seems to best comply with the letter of the First Amendment and the ideal espoused in the Declaration of Independence that we all enjoy the natural and inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If the fine for not having health insurance is less than the cost of health insurance, and you can't be denied for having a pre-existing condition, why not just go without insurance and pay the fine and only buy insurance once you actually get sick?

QFT.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It also has a provision that affects Social Security - a direct violation of the Senate's "Byrd Rule" and will probably get shot down by their Parliamentarian.

Unless Joey Biden overrules the Parliamentarian. You know - being in charge of the Senate and all - the thing he made fun of Palin for saying in their debate.

Uh ... not so much.

Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled against Senate Republicans Monday night, setting aside the first of many expected procedural objections from the GOP.

The parliamentarian ruled that changes to a proposed excise tax on high-cost plans would not violate the 1974 Budget Act by changing contributions to the Social Security trust fund.

Republican procedural experts had argued the impact on Social Security was enough to violate the Byrd Rule and derail the whole bill.

Parliamentarian rules against first GOP objection to 'fixes' bill - TheHill.com

OAW

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Simply Google it.

Here's one article:

Will Obama-care drive doctors out? (article) by Robert Amoroso on AuthorsDen

The number came original from the New England Journal of Medicine, which conducted a survey of its own.

I'm looking for the article that has those numbers and not seeing it.

This is the survey I found:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/14/e23

And the only 30% it mentions is the rough number of conservative doctors responding. No where does it say anything about these doctors throwing in the stethoscope if health reform passes.

[Big Mac]

The only compelling reason to buy insurance now - as opposed to just paying the fine until you really need it - would be unforeseen medical emergencies, in which you'd incur substantial medical bills prior to getting the opportunity to sign up for a plan. But a large percentage of people will still choose to go uninsured, just like a non-trival percentage of motorists get by much of the time being uninsured.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The only compelling reason to buy insurance now - as opposed to just paying the fine until you really need it - would be unforeseen medical emergencies, in which you'd incur substantial medical bills prior to getting the opportunity to sign up for a plan. But a large percentage of people will still choose to go uninsured, just like a non-trival percentage of motorists get by much of the time being uninsured.

What is the cost of the fine vs the cheapest insurance plan? I am keenly interested in that number, specifically the difference between the two.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

What is the cost of the fine vs the cheapest insurance plan? I am keenly interested in that number, specifically the difference between the two.

The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family

Great article. The IRS needs pump action shotguns now. Just wonderful. This is how we're going to get an American police state.

Thanks so much, Socialist fools (a.k.a. Obama worshippers). You elected a demagogue to kill our country in the name of "reforming" a system the vast majority are happy with.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm looking for the article that has those numbers and not seeing it.

This is the survey I found:
NEJM -- Physicians' Beliefs and U.S. Health Care Reform -- A National Survey

And the only 30% it mentions is the rough number of conservative doctors responding. No where does it say anything about these doctors throwing in the stethoscope if health reform passes.

Sorry, but you are incorrect:

CNSNews.com - Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine

From the actual survey conductors:

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/...-health-reform

Skeptics may suspect that physicians exaggerate their intent to leave medicine due to health reform. Some experts point to the malpractice crisis of years ago, when many doctors also expressed a desire to leave medicine. Some did quit; many did not. However, health reform could be the proverbial “last straw” for physicians who are already demoralized, overloaded, and discouraged by multiple issues, combining to form the perfect storm of high malpractice insurance costs, decreasing reimbursements, increasing student loan debt, and more.

Do physicians feel that health reform is necessary? The survey indicates that doctors do want change. Only a very small portion of respondents — about four percent — feel that no reform is needed. However, only 28.7 percent of physicians responded in favor of a public option as part of health reform. Additionally, an overwhelming 63 percent of physicians prefer a more gradual, targeted approach to health reform, as opposed to one sweeping overhaul. Primary care, which is already experiencing significant shortages by many accounts, could stand to be the most affected, based on the survey. About 25 percent of respondents were primary care physicians (defined as internal medicine and family medicine in this case), and of those, 46 percent indicated that they would leave medicine — or try to leave medicine — as a result of health reform.

Why would physicians want to leave medicine in the wake of health reform? The survey results, as seen in Market Watch, indicate that many physicians worry that reform could result in a significant decline in the overall quality of medical care nationwide.

Additionally, many physicians feel that health reform will cause income to decrease, while workload will increase. Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result. This makes for a total of 72 percent of respondents who feel there would be a negative impact on income. When asked the same question regarding health reform implemented without a public option, a total of 50 percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will be negatively impacted, including 14 percent of total respondents who feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically.” Additionally, 36 percent feel it would “decline or worsen somewhat.”

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family

PrisonPlanet is not what I would call a Reliable Source. Can you please provide something a bit more mainstream?

[nonhuman]

The number I've heard for the fine is $100 per year or 1% of your income, whichever is higher until 2014 and then jumping up to a higher number that I can't recall at the moment.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

PrisonPlanet is not what I would call a Reliable Source. Can you please provide something a bit more mainstream?

Facts are facts: CNSNews.com - IRS to Enforce Health Reform

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

PrisonPlanet is not what I would call a Reliable Source. Can you please provide something a bit more mainstream?

This do ya?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=f3544f8...faba5201919a8d

designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family

Please tell me that's a parody site.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

PrisonPlanet is not what I would call a Reliable Source. Can you please provide something a bit more mainstream?

This appears to be the origin of the hysteria:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...&cck=1&au=&ck=

The shotguns are for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, whose jurisdiction includes narcotics-related financial crimes such as money laundering. I assume when they are arresting narcotics traffickers on tax-related charges (if it happens, for example, that those charges are the easiest way to gain a significant conviction), that shotguns come in handy.

I haven't heard anyone complain when other civilian law enforcement agencies get shotguns, and I don't know why this should be an exception.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In light of the fact that she's being denied necessary chemo treatments, I'm not sure how it matters. The point is, she may be failing herself and worse, she's already been failed by the government that makes promises it cannot possibly keep. You don't know her and neither do I. Instead of fundraising on her behalf and doing something about it himself, he's lobbying for everyone else to. Nice.

I wasn't taking sides. Just pointing out what he had posted. A story like that isn't hard to believe because it is happening all over the place.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No. U.S. law understands a fundamental difference between speech which directly advocates or marshals action, and speech which advocates ideas.

It's not constitutionally legal to understand a difference between the two.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not constitutionally legal to understand a difference between the two.

If you want to completely ignore my explanation for why it is legal, fine. The line between speech and action is not so clear-cut. The fact is, plenty of constitutional experts say you are wrong.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Please tell me that's a parody site.

You meant to say: "People actually take their liberty seriously?"

[Macrobat]

It is specifically against the law to threaten the president with bodily harm:

About.com: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you want to completely ignore the rest of my explanation, fine. The line between speech and action is not so clear-cut.

It's very clear cut. Speech is talking about or suggesting something. Action is acting upon something.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The fact is, plenty of constitutional experts say you are wrong.

So, plenty of constitutional experts are wrong. It's OK. It's happened before.

Now, if your constitution was written in an obscure dialect of Aramaic, I might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it's in plain English for all to see. No hoops to be jumped through in order to understand it - and your founders made it this way so that the public could themselves refer to it without requiring constitutional experts to translate it for them, because they knew that said experts will always twist things out of shape.

[Macrobat]

Sorry, Doofy, as I pointed out, there is a specific statute.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It is specifically against the law to threaten the president with bodily harm:

About.com: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml

No. It's specifically against the law to "knowingly and willfully deposit for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, etc..".

Is Twatter a letter carrier or a publisher? Copyright law says "publisher".
Even so, this law is unconstitutional.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, Doofy, as I pointed out, there is a specific statute.

There's a lot of specific statues which aren't constitutionally legal. Both in your country and mine.

[nonhuman]

You mean to say that just because something is the law doesn't mean it's actually legal?!?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's very clear cut. Speech is talking about or suggesting something. Action is acting upon something.

Now, if your constitution was written in an obscure dialect of Aramaic, I might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it's in plain English for all to see. No hoops to be jumped through in order to understand it - and your founders made it this way so that the public could themselves refer to it without requiring constitutional experts to translate it for them, because they knew that said experts will always twist things out of shape.

I'm sorry, you are simply, indisputably wrong. I do not dispute that the authors of the Constitution meant for it to be read "in plain English," but they also wrote it (and assumed it would be read) in a certain context, drawing from English common law. A "plain English" reading of the First Amendment might logically conclude that any anti-defamation laws are also unconstitutional, yet these remained on the books in various states even while the Framers were still alive (many of whom were intimately involved in their respective state constitutions and governments), and it seemed to never occur to anyone to seriously challenge them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You mean to say that just because something is the law doesn't mean it's actually legal?!?

What a bizarre concept, eh? Of course, the more astute find out the facts and use them to their advantage, such as becoming exempt from having to pay any taxes.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, but you are incorrect:

CNSNews.com - Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine

From the actual survey conductors:

The Medicus Firm

Thanks, I was looking for it as an article in the NEJM. Interesting to find that your cnsnews article says it was published in the Mar/April issue of NEJM, when that's not exactly true. It was linked to by nejmjobs.org, a site for recruiting physicians. Linking is not publishing.

-1 for namedropping.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Facts are facts: CNSNews.com - IRS to Enforce Health Reform

"Facts" from a non-reliable source are not reliable. Please provide information from a reliable source.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm sorry, you are simply, indisputably wrong. I do not dispute that the authors of the Constitution meant for it to be read "in plain English," but they also wrote it (and assumed it would be read) in a certain context, drawing from English common law. A "plain English" reading of the First Amendment might logically conclude that any anti-defamation laws are also unconstitutional, yet these remained on the books in various states even while the Framers were still alive, and it seemed to never occur to anyone to seriously challenge them.

Read it again - "Congress shall make no law". Doesn't say anything about removing the laws which were already in place.

If your founding fathers wrote the constitution to be read in a particular context, then they were a bunch of richardheads. I don't believe they were richardheads. Do you?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Read it again - "Congress shall make no law". Doesn't say anything about removing the laws which were already in place.

Weak, and undermining your own argument. Are you now saying that the authors of the Constitution acquiesced to limitations on this sacrosanct freedom of speech? In that case, there is nothing very contradictory about the current interpretation of the First Amendment.

If your founding fathers wrote the constitution to be read in a particular context, then they were a bunch of ********s. I don't believe they were ********s. Do you?

I think some of them were. I do not fall in the trap of empowering these people with supernatural foresight and other godly powers. They were people and many of them were not at all of the same mind about what the United States should look like.

Ironically, one of the principal arguments many of them raised against the Bill of Rights during the debates about the ratification of the Constitution was the fear that it would be read too literally.

[Big Mac]

To the extent that there were state laws abridging speech before and after the federal Constitution's ratification, that's not surprising, SpaceMonkey: The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government and was not binding on the states at all.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's a lot of specific statues which aren't constitutionally legal. Both in your country and mine.

I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't say anything about 'Congress shall make no law abridging the ability to conspire to commit murder'.

So, you can say what you want. But - make a credible threat that you're going to kill someone - particularly the POTUS, and there's a good chance someone will be knocking on your door to see if you really mean it. If there's evidence you do, well, good luck with that.

[nonhuman]

Well, I've written up my thoughts on all of this, and I would be very interested in getting feedback: On the other hand | What does ObamaCare actually do?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Weak, and undermining your own argument. Are you now saying that the authors of the Constitution acquiesced to limitations on this sacrosanct freedom of speech?

I'm saying that they said "Congress shall make no law". They didn't say "Congress shall make no law and overturn existing laws". Any law regarding speech made prior to the introduction of the bill of rights can be still valid. Any law made after is not. That's how constitutions work, otherwise they ain't constitutions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To the extent that there were state laws abridging speech before and after the federal Constitution's ratification, that's not surprising, SpaceMonkey: The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government and was not binding on the states at all.

It is only not surprising if you think that the general philosophy that the authors of the Constitution held about the role of government, applied in the Constitution toward the federal government, would not have also applied in their view toward state governments. As I mentioned, many of these figures were involved in drafting their own state constitutions, many of which included similar language about freedom of speech.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't say anything about 'Congress shall make no law abridging the ability to conspire to commit murder'.

If you're using speech to do so, then yes it does.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you're using speech to do so, then yes it does.

I disagree. Congress can't abridge the speech, but they can abridge the conspiracy.

I can use a knife to chop onions, or I can use a knife to stab someone. It's not OK to stab someone just because it's legal to use a knife.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It is only not surprising if you think that the general philosophy that the authors of the Constitution held about the role of government, applied in the Constitution toward the federal government, would not have also applied in their view toward state governments. As I mentioned, many of these figures were involved in drafting their own state constitutions, many of which included similar language about freedom of speech.

True, but they also designed the Constitution specifically to apply only to the federal government. Everything else was delegated to the 'several States'. They might have thought these ideas were great and worthy of inclusion in state constitutions as well, but the fact that they thought it necessary to put them in those state constitutions means that the US Constitution was not intended to apply to the state governments and that the individual states were meant to be free to individually find their own solutions.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I disagree. Congress can't abridge the speech, but they can abridge the conspiracy.

I can use a knife to chop onions, or I can use a knife to stab someone. It's not OK to stab someone just because it's legal to use a knife.

That's because there's a law that says it's illegal to stab someone, not a law that says we can't regulate knives...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I disagree. Congress can't abridge the speech, but they can abridge the conspiracy.

I can use a knife to chop onions, or I can use a knife to stab someone. It's not OK to stab someone just because it's legal to use a knife.

A conspiracy is merely speech until action is taken. So no, they can't abridge it.

It's like this fellas: a constitution is either 100% literal (and not open to interpretation) or it's not a constitution - it's a manifesto. I'm OK with renaming it to "The US Manifesto" if you are.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm saying that they said "Congress shall make no law". They didn't say "Congress shall make no law and overturn existing laws". Any law regarding speech made prior to the introduction of the bill of rights can be still valid. Any law made after is not. That's how constitutions work, otherwise they ain't constitutions.

Congress had literally not made any laws yet, so of course it was worded that way. And as Big Mac correctly pointed out, existing state laws were originally not "covered' by the Bill of Rights, but the salient point here is that similar protections found their way into state constitutions, with no effect on views toward defamation laws.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Congress had literally not made any laws yet, so of course it was worded that way. And as Big Mac correctly pointed out, existing state laws were originally not "covered' by the Bill of Rights, but the salient point here is that similar protections found their way into state constitutions, with no effect on views toward defamation laws.

So, which state law is that Twatter bloke being investigated under?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's because there's a law that says it's illegal to stab someone, not a law that says we can't regulate knives...

Exactly. As there are laws that say it's illegal to conspire to commit murder.

So if the Secret Service has probable cause to believe someone is conspiring to kill the POTUS, I think they have a responsibility to investigate. If it turns out not to be the case, then no one gets imprisoned and no one's rights have been abridged. If it does turn out to be the case, then off to trial!

I'm not defending that law about threatening the POTUS, I'm just defending the Secret Service's right to investigate issues and protect him, and enforce laws that are constitutional.

[The Final Dakar]

Twatter is almost as clever as 0bama.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

True, but they also designed the Constitution specifically to apply only to the federal government. Everything else was delegated to the 'several States'. They might have thought these ideas were great and worthy of inclusion in state constitutions as well, but the fact that they thought it necessary to put them in those state constitutions means that the US Constitution was not intended to apply to the state governments and that the individual states were meant to be free to individually find their own solutions.

Of course, but post-Incorporation, we are beyond that point. I bring up the legitimacy of anti-defamation laws only to illustrate that the authors of the Constitution themselves were fully conscious of the distinction between maliciously injurious speech and, for lack of a better term, "legitimate speech," drawn from English common law. It's not a stretch to argue that "speech," as written in the First Amendment, refers only to the latter. That is the framework they were accustomed to (many of them being lawyers) and there is nothing to suggest they would have preferred any differently.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A conspiracy is merely speech until action is taken. So no, they can't abridge it.

It's like this fellas: a constitution is either 100% literal (and not open to interpretation) or it's not a constitution - it's a manifesto. I'm OK with renaming it to "The US Manifesto" if you are.

In that case, we shouldn't be thwarting terrorist plots either.

Anyway, conspiracy is more than speech - it's also the actions taken in preparation to commit a crime. I agree - if there's little evidence of preparation, then there's little evidence of conspiracy. That's what investigations are for.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, which state law is that Twatter bloke being investigated under?

I don't understand your point here. It's a Federal law.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't understand your point here. It's a Federal law.

Which would be invalid, since your constitution manifesto states that such laws can't be made.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

In that case, we shouldn't be thwarting terrorist plots either.

Technically, no you shouldn't.

I'm not saying that I agree with what your constitution manifesto says, but merely pointing out where it says the boundaries are. I think it's probably high time for a re-write, to be honest.