Compared to Biden, we’re all “leading scholars”
I love Bite Me Biden, I’m going to miss him after January. Apparently, according to the Washington Examiner, yesterday Bite Me told an eager crowd of reporters that Al Franken is a “leading legal scholar”;
“He has been one of the leading legal scholars,” Biden said of Franken today, according to the pool report. He also said that Franken “is deadly serious” as a senator. He made the comments while recalling concerns that then-candidate Franken could not be taken seriously as a Senate candidate given his SNL work.
Of course, compared to Joe Bite Me, Coco the Chimp is a leading legal scholar.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Dumbass Bullshit
Just one of many problems with your logic, or lack thereof. As has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, but you seem to be hard of hearing or simply refuse to accept the obvious – NO, YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE!!! You are only obliged to buy auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive an auto.
This issue remains that for the first time in history, we are all being mandated to buy something (it matters not a whit what that something is) based only upon our having an ability to breath. It doesn’t matter at all if the something we are being mandated to buy is brocolli, twinkies or tiddlywinks.
Were any of those seamen forced to be seamen? Unless the entire population of the country at that time were seamen and had become so involuntarily, then there is no comparison.
But again, it’s NOT a “mandate” in the truest sense of the word. If you refuse to buy health insurance you don’t go to jail, you just don’t get the tax break. Just like you don’t get the tax break if you don’t buy a house or have a kid. The government isn’t “forcing” you to do either of these things, they’re just encouraging it through tax policy.
The tax is also a VERY limited tax only applying to people who 1. are rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies and 2. Still refuse to buy health insurance despite having the money to do so. So the notion that EVERYONE is mandated is just false. We’re talking a pretty small segment of the population.
The tax is a fair tax well within the functions of government to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce. If the courts can mandate what seeds are grown in a farmers own field then they can certainly mandate this.
THE most aspect of the car v. health insurance argument is that Car Insurance is a state mandated issue. If Taxachussetts residents want to vote in such a mandate, the state of Taxachussetts has the Constitutional authority to do so, but neither they nor the Federal Government, ie. Congress/Executive branch, has the Constitutional authority to mandate either car or health insurance.
This is the same reason that the Congress cannot define marriage, short of what it pays out in employee benefits of the Federal Govt, because contract law, including marriage, falls under State, not Federal law. It is also why, when the voters of California amend their Constitution to define marriage, the Federal Government has no authority to change that, not even in the Federal court system but neither do the states have the authority to order the government to pay benefits in any manner the Federal Employer deems inappropriate.
I’m sorry, but yeah, they do have that power. They have the unquestioned power to tax, they have the unquestioned power to regulate commerce which health care certainly falls under and they have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to promote the general welfare, which health care certainly does.
Hell, Inspipid, if I could, I’d give you a printed copy of the Constitution, even though I was uncertain you could comprehend even that simple English.
Quote me the parts it authorizes “unquestioned” taxation & mandated health insurance. Not a pair of words, but the entirety of the clause, you somehow think makes it unquestionable they have the power.
And just for shits and grins, tell me what you think INTERstate means in the Constitutional context.
So basically you’ve got nothing so you’re resorting to the standard name-calling. Or maybe you can explain how the government can encourage people to buy homes, have kids, buy SUV’s but can’t encourage people to buy health insurance?
As far as the Constitution goes, here’s some passages for you:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
This definately satisfies that requirement.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Healthcare is 1/6th of our economy and since you never know where and when you’re going to get sick or get into an accident
Then there’s this passage you MAY have heard of:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Certainly having health insurance for everyone promotes the general welfare.
Plus you’re conveniently forgetting that we’re ALL being forced to pay for healthcare NOW. We pay for the people who refuse to buy health insurance when they go to the emergency room. All the PPACA does is transfer that cost from all of us at the back end to the ricipient of the care at the front end.
Oh, the reason WHY hospitals MUST treat people in emergency rooms is because Congress passed a law mandating that under the well known pinko-commie Rondald Reagan.
I’ll ask the question again, if the government can, through the tax code, encourage people to buy a certain car or own a home or have a kid, why can’t they encourage people to have insurance?
Insipid I am glad that you are not a breeder, because with your stupidity I would not want you genes passed down. So rather than eating a dick how’s about you go slam your balls in a car door just to be sure your genetic information doesn’t get passed along.
insipid: Have you even bothered to read the actual portions of the law that are being discussed here? Or are you just parroting what your professors and friends tell you the law says? Hell, I’d bet you can’t even tell us what parts of the US Code (1) levy the individual mandate, and (2) set the penalties for not having individual health insurance. Unless you can, and have actually read them, you don’t really know what you’re talking about. If that’s the case you’re merely ignorantly parroting talking points developed by others vice actually thinking for yourself. Again.
And here, it’s obvious you haven’t actually bothered to read the operative parts of the law. What’s being done here isn’t taxation. Rather, an individual is being assessed a “penalty” (look it up in Federal law, dipstick – it’s not a tax, and the law is very careful not to refer to the Obamacare penalties as taxes). However, this so-called “penalty” is not a penalty for non-payment or late payment of any mandatory tax. Rather, it’s being illigetemately assessed on individuals who decline to participate in commerce by exercising their right not to purchase a product they do not desire to buy and for which they have determined they do not need – but are being penalized for not doing so nontheless merely because they are breathing. The Obama administration is using the IRS to deprive persons of property here without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s no different than leving a penalty on someone in any year they didn’t buy a new US-built car or truck.
There are legal ways to do this, but having the IRS assess tax penalties on things that don’t exist as de facto taxes vice collecting lawful taxes isn’t among them.
Above was me.
And insipid: wanna guess what party controlled Congress – and thus the passage of laws – from 1981 through 1989? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t the GOP.
WOTN: insipid seems incapable of grasping the fact that parts of laws are explanation of intent and do not grant authority. He’s also incapable of grasping the concepts of specifically enumerated powers and powers reserved for the people and subordinate political junctions (e.g., “States”). He’s apparently OK with living in a dictatorship that rules every aspect of individual conduct without legal or practical limit. Perhaps we should take up a collection so he can move to North Korea or the Taliban strongholds in Pakistan and see how that works in practice (non-refundable one-way fare, of course). I’ll fund the first $100 of his airfare. He particularly fails to grasp that Congress and the Federal government only have authority under the Constitution where that authority is specifically granted. He also fails to grasp the fact that those portions of the Constitution he loves to quote here – specifically, the entire preamble and the first part of the 2nd Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .”) are merely statements of intent that neither convey authority nor restrict individual action. He seems to think that they do both. In short: insipid is merely a tool and talking head who speaks without understanding. His comments are tales “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” His posts above have already proven him to have limited understanding and a regrettable unwillingness to research an issue and think for himself. He’d prefer to parrot DU pablum vice take the time to think for himself – and maybe find out he’s been lied to and is wrong. My guess is he’s some undergraduate student struggling to stay off academic probation while attending some second-tier state university on a Pell grant or student loan (or on Mom & Dad’s dime) while working at Starbucks or McDonalds part-time for beer money who’s (1) drunk the Marxist cool-aid and (2) changed his major from something worthwhile to English lit or sociology (or some other nebulous social sciences/arts/humanities field) because he couldn’t cut it in a more… Read more »
Hondo, your skills of observation and analysis are duly noted. I’m out of pearls to toss, but there’s a very basic English construction that he has failed to understand: The passage you quoted, Insipid, states to regulate “AMONGST the States” and with foreign powers. It does not in any way say WITHIN the states, or amongs individuals. It states “general welfare of THE NATION,” not the social welfare of individuals, nor in any way allow for what is today known as the welfare system. This clause of the Constitution imparts a fidiciuary duty upon those that are elected to office to do what is in the best interest of the Nation, i.e. to prevent illegal drug importation, illegal immigration, to do what is in the interest of the Nation, not the individual politicians best financial or political interest. And your tax clause? It says those must be “UNIFORM” throughout the Nation. This is hardly the case, even if health insurance were a tax. As Hondo so aptly points out, you have failed to comprehend that only those things which are specifically authorized the Federal Government, i.e. only those things that at a minimum cross state lines, can be regulated by the FEDERAL government, and all things not authorized to it, are RESERVED for State Government, or THE PEOPLE. And again, I remind you that “We the People” refers to who has authorized and limited the Federal Government, to operate ONLY within the parameters of the Constitution, and hence who has authority to remove those politicians from government. We the People have limited the authority of government by Our God-Given rights, or “Providence,” as we understand that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but some form of government must exist, despite the corruptive nature of it. So, while NY or CA voters can establish through their own state constitutional processes a Health Insurance requirement, or define the limitations of a marriage contract, the Federal government has NO authority to do so, and the citizens of those states that don’t like those laws have the Freedom to vote with their feet,… Read more »
Hondo @ 111: Yes, i’m extremely well aware of the law and all of its provisions, much moreso than you. The fact is that it IS a tax whether or not they actually cal it that or not. There is a long, endless list of SC cases that say that the Constitutionality of a tax law depends upon how it functions, not on its precise labels. And the mandate functions as a tax. It’s enforced by the tax code and it will be reported on your tax return. This is one of those instances where both parties are being somewhat dishonest because of hopes to further themeselves politically. President Obama refuses to call it a tax because it- along with the increased taxes on cigarretes is a clear-cut violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than 250k. The GOP won’t call it a tax because they think it will make it easier to kill the law in courts and they think mandate makes the law sound extreme and unhear of. Also, dipstick, you’re completly wrong in your assessment that healthcare is something people don’t want to buy. They DO absolutely want to buy healthcare (hence its popularity in Massachussetts and other countries and places which have mandates) the problem isn’t that people don’t want healthcare its that people can’t afford it. This is a problem the PPACA solves by bringing everyone into the pool. As far as the passage of EMTALA goes are you saying that Rondald Reagan was just a bystander? That somehow he didn’t have the veto pen in 1986? That there was no way he could of killed that bill if he wanted to? He could of he didn’t want to. And, by the way, i’m PRAISING Reagan for this. I only wish there were more sane Republicans like him today. Maybe YOU want to live in a country where emergency rooms kick people with gunshot wounds to the curb if they can’t prove that they can pay, but I don’t. That’s not the United States. We don’t ask dying people for… Read more »
Insipid don’t you have a burger to flip or something?
You have it completely backwards WOTN. It’s the Blue States that by and large support the Red-States. Typically the Blue States are the States that pay in more the The federal government then they get back and the Red States that are the leaches.
As far as your spurious 10th amendment talking points. The fact is that the Commerce Clause has been used to enforce prohibitions against whites only bathrooms, it’s been used to even mandate how much a farmer can grow for HIS OWN consumption. The fact is that this is WELL within the power of the Constitution and there’s already precedent with government enforcing people to buy Social Security insurance and medicare insurance.
The Social Safety net has been establishe as being Constitutional. Deal with it.
As far as freedom goes, the Federal Government has done more for providing freedom for more people then any other force on earth. It was the State Government’s that were for continuing slavery into infinity and the Federal Government that eventually ended it.
It was the Federal government that instituted Social Security freeing millions of seniors from horrible poverty. It was the Federal Government, not a collection of States that rid Europe and Japan of totalitarian dictators. It was the Federal Government that ended Jim Crow laws (using the Commerce clause quite a bit i might add) and it was the Federal Government that gave us Medicare and Medicaid freeing millions of seniors from having to worry about getting ill and dying on the streets or incumbering their children with never-ending debt.
So no, i’m not buying into your idiotic comparisons between the Federal Government doing things to help people being comparable to the Taliban. The ones who are most Taliban-like is Conservatives who see eye to eye with the Taliban on gays, women, and making this land a theocracy.
@116: Do you really think that bothers me Jason? It doesn’t. It does amuse me however. For two weeks you Conservatives were on the feinting couch regarding Hillary Rosen’s comments. “How dare she look down upon the contribution of someone who decides to be a single mother!?!? HARUMPH!” “How snobbish!” “How Elitist!!!”Doesn’t she recognize that raising kids is work too!”
Now you all are revealing yourselves to be what i’m accusing you of: a party that only values the oppinions and the views of the rich. A party that looks down upon honest labor that assumes that anyone that engages in honest labor is stupid, or incapable of having a worthy oppinion. It completely explains your willingness to inact laws that make it difficult for minorities and poor to vote. I mean who cares what they have to say anyway?
Your comments do not insult me. I don’t look askance on anyone, especially laborers. If you want to assume i work at Starbucks or Burger kind and look down on me for it, that says something about YOU, not me. It shows what YOU are. A party for the rich, by the rich and obsequious to the rich. Starbucks workers and Burger Flippers need not apply.
Insipid all I really read is maybe the first and maybe the last sentence, the rest is just random letters. Honestly, if I thought it would do any good to discuss anything with you I would write something of value, but alas it doesn’t. You come on here for no real purpose that I can think of so I just make random blurbs at you. I may as well say insipid random words… I just wonder how much you will write in response? Basically all you want to do is limit people’s freedom of will and choice which is always good when you are the benefactor, but when it gets turned on you it isn’t such fun. Okay now I am going to resume my random words and insults against you.
Good, for you, Jasin. Revel in your stupidity,it always works for you Conservabots.
Once again you prove your stupidity. I guess the saying about two ears and one mouth doesn’t apply to fingers and eyes…
I’m not the one commenting on posts i haven’t read, Jasin. Nor am i the one insulting working people. That’s stupid, and that’s you.