Now, with more nuance. Sorta.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care [...]
 She said she could envision a day when “you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview”
Ah! Proof of medical insurance to be presented at a job interview.
But proof of citizenship? Not so much.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/18 @ 1:55 pm #
Then they apply this to trade negotiations…
Cause of the fairness. And yet people, they will still get sick and die.
Comment by dicentra on 9/18 @ 1:57 pm #
Wait. Isn’t that what Romney did in Mass.? How did that work out?
BECAUSE OF THE STOLEN THUNDER!!!
Comment by Fred on 9/18 @ 2:05 pm #
Edwards wants to force you to go see the doctor. Force you.
Now, Hilary wants to prevent you from getting a job if you don’t buy in to their “free” health insurance.
Didn’t a really wise man once say something about how you can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients too? Ronald Wilson something or other. It will come to me.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 9/18 @ 2:06 pm #
I think they should require proof of home ownership to vote.
Proof of citizenship for state services.
Proof of book learnin’ before graduation.
Proof of low body-fat before buying a video camera.
Before you buy a stock, you’ll need proof that the stock will rise.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 9/18 @ 2:09 pm #
At any rate, there’s nothing like limiting employment to those wealthy enough to deserve employment. Should take care of our illegal immigrant problem nicely.
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 2:17 pm #
Did she really say that? Good Lord, too bad that she did not say that during the general election, because her merry band of idiots running against her does not collectivistly have the stones to go up against her and challenge this inanity.
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 2:58 pm #
For what it is worth, I want the Dems to run on this shit. I want them to stand up in front of the American people with the following campaign promises:
1. We will take your best-in-the-world healthcare, and turn it over to the government.
2. We will tax success into submission.
3. We are losers, and promise to quit if we do not lose in time.
Please, Allah, please let them do this. I want the American people to finally get a really good look at what they stand for, on everything. Mandated insurance, but not citizenship. Voting cleaned up, but don’t date ask for ID. Success? You owe us, big time.
Primarily, I want them to run on the idea that we have lost the war, or will quit as soon as possible. Their position flies in the face of the American ideal, and will not resonate with people.
If that message allows them to win, then we should be forced to suffer the consequences of electing them. It will be a short term disaster, and they will not be allowed to sit at the adult table for a long time to come.
Comment by mojo on 9/18 @ 3:20 pm #
AFF Network? No head image? New schema?
A few renovations on the old homestead?
Comment by Sticky B on 9/18 @ 5:41 pm #
I can see myself sitting all day in the waiting room of some govt run health care facility, waiting for someone to treat my HBP, when I’m about 75 just repeating over and over “Fuck Hillary, Fuck Bill, Fuck Al, Fuck Ted, Fuck Nancy, Fuck John…..” And then probably being tazered and pepper sprayed for disturbing the peace. I better get me some shades.
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 5:52 pm #
Sticky B – You had better hope that hypertension is on the approved list and is sufficiently important so as to rate for care given in the proper month.
Comment by Darleen on 9/18 @ 5:58 pm #
And Sticky B had better not be a smoker either.
Comment by dicentra on 9/18 @ 6:21 pm #
Wow. Slick changeover, Jeff. Nice digs.
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 6:28 pm #
And Sticky B, you can just forget about trying to get the right combination and right levels of medication. That will certainly not fit into socialized medicine for all, which is generally premised on delivering the bare minimum quality of care to the most people possible, while pushing aside conditions and people that have not been prioritized.
Comment by Drumwaster on 9/18 @ 7:45 pm #
I don’t think that the Govmint should have anything to do with health care until they show they can actually run a whorehouse at a profit.
Comment by JHoward on 9/18 @ 7:48 pm #
By What right may government tell the private sector and individual what it and they must do? Somebody explain that? Amendment or something?
Comment by Mike C. on 9/18 @ 8:05 pm #
JHoward,
These are progressive ideas! You know, progressive, progress, moving forward, advancing. Did our ancestors need an amendment to invent the wheel? To tame fire? To develop language?
Comment by Slowking Man on 9/18 @ 8:34 pm #
Proof of citizenship? What are you, some kind of racist?
Comment by B Moe on 9/18 @ 8:41 pm #
Do you suppose Venezuela has a National Healthcare program?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/240962.php
I’ll bet they do.
Comment by Scrapiron on 9/18 @ 9:07 pm #
Shrillary skipped Socialism and went streight into Communism. What a surprise. Drumwaster, as we say in the country, you hit the nail on the head. Every “American” wishes they had thought of that goodie. All Americans doesn’t count the anti-american left wing brain washed dummies sitting on Shrillary’s lap waiting for her to pull the string.
Comment by Merovign on 9/18 @ 9:25 pm #
Anyone remember Gattaca? People required to prove their genetic worth before they could get the good jobs?
I think the Dem candidates are hilarious this year. Edwards wants to take everything you have and give you back what you “need,” Hillary just wants to banish you if you don’t do what she wants.
It’s like a cross between sixth grade and Revolutionary France.
Comment by Charles Darnay on 9/18 @ 9:52 pm #
It’s like a cross between sixth grade and Revolutionary France.
Best ten years of my life.
Sixth grade, that is…
Comment by Robin Roberts on 9/18 @ 10:24 pm #
So the same Democrats who oppose requiring people to show ID to vote, and resist efforts to deport illegal aliens, now want to require people to show proof of insurance to get a job?
2008 is going to be a very scary year.
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 10:47 pm #
Mergovign – Funny shit.
Robin – If they manage to elect one of them, then we deserve the consequenes of that election.
Comment by Robin Roberts on 9/18 @ 11:09 pm #
JD, I was hoping to avoid being one of the “we” you are refering to … *sigh*
Comment by JD on 9/18 @ 11:17 pm #
Robin – We, meaning all Americans, unfortunately. Maybe we need to let a Dem hold the White House and Congress, so the people can see the Dems at their finest. Personally, I think that Hillary and the band of misfits have some fine ideas, and we need to promote them, make sure everyone hears them. If they still elect these people, then our country will quickly learn, and the Dems will not hold adult offices for a long, long time.
Comment by B Moe on 9/19 @ 3:24 am #
Think about all this in the context of the screeching about the “Big Oil Monopoly” and the dangers of having someone formerly in the Big Oil Business in the White House. These same drooling morons think the solution to the healthcare monopoly is to force people to pay. It is a level of stupid that is hard to comprehend.
Comment by geoffb on 9/19 @ 4:11 am #
She will have to mandate that everyone has a job and that their health care covers all family members too.
I see in our future, a “water empire”, ruled by “she who must be obeyed”.
Comment by Dan Collins on 9/19 @ 4:51 am #
That ought to get American citizens out of the emergency rooms, so that non-citizens have them all to themselves. Which is only fair, considering they don’t have to have car insurance, don’t pay taxes, and Durbin wants to give them the right to in-state college tuition in whatever state suits them. So, quit whining, second-class Americans.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 5:32 am #
I think you mean employment authorization, not citizenship.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 5:38 am #
“By What right may government tell the private sector and individual what it and they must do? Somebody explain that? Amendment or something?”
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution has a lot of stuff.
Comment by eLarson on 9/19 @ 6:13 am #
Funny, I didn’t see anything in Article I, Section 8 that says anything about regulating the health of The People.
I envision a day when I’ll be able to pay cash for a doctor’s visit.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 6:32 am #
Calling all Progs! Calling all Progs!
Please come around and help me with this little concern:
Why are we to assume that a government health care system will be well run both administratively and financially when the current government run health system is constantly criticized for excessive red tape, substandard followup care and an inability to use its financial resources judiciously?
That would be the current VA system. Oh, and Medicare.
Anyone?
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 6:38 am #
eLarson:
Or … Education, Roadwork, Public Housing, Welfare, Medicare …
But you know, that Constitution, it breaths! It’s alive!!
Apparently, it also says anything that andy wants. I’m jealous of him.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 6:44 am #
BJ – I truly believe that we need to let the Dems try this crap out, then once people see what it is really like, we will never have to deal with it again.
eLarson – We are contemplating switching from our current doctors to a local practice that takes no insurance, is purely fee for service, and does house calls, etc …
Comment by Dan Collins on 9/19 @ 6:50 am #
Unfortunately, utopia is generationally omnipresent.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 6:55 am #
That is a great line, Dan. Now that I think about it, LBJ’s programs were at best not effective, yet we cling to them today. Were we to try to implement Hillarycare 2.0, it would still be around 50 years later, with the Dems just adding more give-aways onto it around election time. Better to beat them before they have a chance to implement it altogether.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 7:00 am #
It helps when reading the “It’s alive” phrase above to hear it in Gene Wilder’s voice.
Giggling uncontrollably…
Comment by Darleen on 9/19 @ 7:13 am #
andy
Of course there are a lot of non-citizens that have legal authorization to work here
but hey, makes for clunky phrasing, no?
What we have here, from Hillary to Edwards, is the move to seize a significant portion of the economy for government monopoly on the grounds that it is not “working correctly” when it is government policies that “broke” it in the first place.
Not a perfect comparison, but look at auto insurance. Is your employer required to provide it for you? Are you restricted to only the policies your employer offers? Are all those policies so “inclusive” that they (for hundreds of dollars a month premiums) cover oil changes, tune ups and tire rotations? Does the federal government grant an exclusive monopoly to an organization which restricts the numbers of certified auto mechanics in the country?
Understand, when Hillary!Care or EdwardsCare nationalizes this sector and provides “free” care of anything health related to all comers, that rationing of the care is not far behind.
See Canada and England.
Comment by Old Dan on 9/19 @ 7:29 am #
We have a chance at the perfect compromise: proof of health insurance to get a job; proof of citizenship/legal residency to obtain health insurance! Jesse + Jesse in ‘88!
Comment by JHoward on 9/19 @ 7:29 am #
Article 1, Section 8 has nothing about federal medicine, federal education, federal housing, federal regulations of citizen’s behaviors, federal identification, federal licensing, concealed-carry holster types, the color scheme of of government school busses, or side impact beams in fleets of either white or navy Ford Tauruses used for government use.
Oh, or concerning any other exertion of government control over the private commerce sector.
Recall that an unenumerated power is not a power. The power to tax is not the power to spend tax revenues on legislating fireproof shingles, saftey-wired lugnuts, or those damnable nutsack-impact airbags.
If it doesn’t fit, you must aquit.
To wit ( a few interesting items bolded by moi):
Hilary is a Socialist. Say it with me.
Or you’ll be saying it with me.
Comment by Old Dan on 9/19 @ 7:30 am #
Ar, it ate my “/Bloom County” tag.
Comment by JHoward on 9/19 @ 7:34 am #
Actually, Hilary is somewhat more of a Marxist, provided that shall wrankle the masses from their various stupors…
BECAUSE HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT!
Comment by JHoward on 9/19 @ 7:35 am #
Actually, actually, because the appearance of healthcare is a right.
This is harder than it looks.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 7:46 am #
BJ – Every time I see someone say that the Constitution is a living document, I am going to hear Gene Wilder’s quote. Thanks.
JHoward – Hillycare 2.0 is just another instance where the majority of the people are likely going to be willing to cede a larger bit of control of their own lives over to those that believe that they know what is better for us than we do. Sad, but it appears inevitable.
Comment by Swen Swenson on 9/19 @ 7:50 am #
Let’s see: We’ll need to have medical insurance in order to get a job, but we’ll need a job in order to afford medical insurance. Great idea, but there’s got to be a Catch..
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 7:52 am #
Swen – I believe that is referred to as a Catch-22.
Comment by Swen Swenson on 9/19 @ 7:56 am #
Aaarrrhh!! Brainwash? Do you use that before or after the mentalfloss?
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 7:57 am #
Swen:
Of course there’s a Catch!
22
JD: Say it with me: “The Constitution! It’s alive! ALIIIIIIIIIIVE!!! BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA!!!”
Still no takers to my question in #32 above. Anyone? Inquiring minds want to know!
Comment by JHoward on 9/19 @ 8:05 am #
BJTexs, actually add this to your question: If the current socialized system…
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082307C
…is such a trainwreck, how is the new socialized system going to fix it?
SICKO!
PS: I have more than a little experience with medical care. I have no insurance. Fact: Government medicine has left me 100% on the curb. Fact: The private sector, acting through local contributions, has underwritten well over 90% of my expenses.
So I ask you as well, socialized medicine types: If socialized medicine, the type of which we have right now, is such a mess, how will Hillarycare repair it?
Now returning you to our discussion of where the government has the legal right in the first place…
Comment by Prog on 9/19 @ 8:06 am #
Why are we to assume that a government health care system will be well run both administratively and financially when the current government run health system is constantly criticized for excessive red tape, substandard followup care and an inability to use its financial resources judiciously?
Social Security is one of the finest systems ever devised, it is financially solvent until the end of time, unless a Republican wins the Presidency, and then their actions will make the system insolvent overnight, and older Americans will die of starvation and Donner each other just to survive.
Medicare and the VA are not fair comparisons, because they are for a select group of people. The system will be far more efficient once there are 287,000,000 people in it, not counting the illegal immigrants, who will only serve to make it even more efficient. It is a problem of scale.
Frnakly, your lack of concern is appalling, and has to be based on a foundation of hatred towards minorities, women, and those whose sexuality can change between have kids with a wife and ass sex in a pubic restroom.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/19 @ 8:12 am #
BJT,
Those problems have only existed since Republicans have been in charge of gov’t. When Dems were in control all gov’t agencies were models of performance and efficiency.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 8:26 am #
I offer my most abject apologies to Prog and Mike C. for my diversion from The Narrative™.
I shall pet an iguana, forego my Double Latte Fat Free Extra Foam and hold my carbon spewing breath for 72 hours as penance for my sin.
The ‘Thugs! They screw up EVERYTHING!!!
Comment by Swen Swenson on 9/19 @ 8:36 am #
Aarrhh! What did that Heller feller know about Catches that Hillary doesn’t? You’d have to be crazy not to want free medical care. But if you believe the government can provide free medical care you are crazy..
Comment by Darleen on 9/19 @ 8:38 am #
their actions will make the system insolvent overnight, and older Americans will die of starvation and Donner each other just to survive.
Love it. You’ve got the progg’s derangement over all non-lefties down pat.
Comment by memomachine on 9/19 @ 8:54 am #
Hmmm.
Bit of a chicken-egg kind of situation if you’re broke and looking for a job, which you cannot get until you have the cash to get healthcare.
Hillary’s strong point isn’t logic is it.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:05 am #
Thanks, Darleen.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/19 @ 9:25 am #
JD: You mean I apologized to you? Judas Priest, if you were any more reactionary you’d be in violation of The Test Ban Treaty! Damn you for spoiling my snark and, oh, by the way, I still don’t have a non-satiric answer to my question #32!!!
That being said, the Donner line made me snort! Nice work!
Pingback by Fred!: Vampire Slayer on 9/19 @ 9:30 am #
[...] the Hillary!Care scheme describe here yesterday by Darleen: “What is it that makes liberals think the best way to help somebody is to punish [...]
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:51 am #
BJ – I was just trying it out. Being a Prog is easy.
Comment by Drumwaster on 9/19 @ 10:01 am #
If the Government is big enough to give you everything you want, it’s big enough to take away everything you have. — Gerald Ford
Comment by eLarson on 9/19 @ 10:52 am #
Apparently, it also says anything that andy wants. I’m jealous of him.
Well, his has “a bunch of stuff”… maybe his version IS alive.
Comment by The Fabulous Timbo on 9/19 @ 11:33 am #
I don’t know how a government that routinely botches things up can all of a sudden do something efficiently like UHC. Unless it’s the same part of the government that puts sedative gas in those funky new vapor trails in the sky. “I want THAT part of the government to run HillCare!”
Comment by eLarson on 9/19 @ 6:18 pm #
I’ll grudgingly consider the plan only if Halliburton gets to run it instead.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 6:21 pm #
Fucking brilliant idea, eLarson.
Comment by B Moe on 9/19 @ 6:22 pm #
How come nobody ever seems to remember this little detail:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 6:31 pm #
B Moe – I could not agree more, but that ship has sailed a long time ago. Once the Courts allowed the Commerce Clause to include practically anything that has been, is, or ever will be in the stream of commerce, or tangentially affiliated with a product or service that helps place that item in the stream of commerce, that fight was lost.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 7:49 pm #
“Funny, I didn’t see anything in Article I, Section 8 that says anything about regulating the health of The People.”
It regulates commerce. I don’t know if you have noticed, but health care is some big commerce.
“Recall that an unenumerated power is not a power. The power to tax is not the power to spend tax revenues on legislating fireproof shingles, saftey-wired lugnuts, or those damnable nutsack-impact airbags.”
Its the power to tax for the general welfare. They also have the power to do anything necessary and proper for any other power of the federal government. So if those fireproof shingles are in commerce, government can regulate them, and can also raise taxes that are necessary and proper to regulate them.
I’m sorry that the reality of what we have disagrees with how you wish to read the constitution. But we shouldnt be surprised. After all: the classical liberal ideal which commodifies most things, values and services, as an alienable and therefore tradeable item has as a benefit the attachement of monetary value that we bargain for in achieving that value. That makes it an item of commerce, subject to regulation. Too bad.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 8:09 pm #
andy – Is there anything, in your view, that the government cannot do?
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 8:10 pm #
It is precisely that type of feel good thinking that led to Social Security, welfare, Great Society, etc …
Comment by Mike C. on 9/19 @ 8:17 pm #
Why would the authors of the Constitution take such great pains to design a government of limited powers only to insert a single clause that effectively removed all of those limitations?
Comment by Mike C. on 9/19 @ 8:25 pm #
andy,
The portion that you reference actually reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
So, if my doctor lives on my block has his practice in a building just down the street and I choose to pay him with cash, how does that constitute commerce “among the several states”?
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 8:34 pm #
Mike C – By the tortured logic of people like Andy, since you are using money printed by the Federal government, they can regulate the transaction. Your doctor’s stethoscope was likely manufactured overseas, was imported via a different countries boats, arrived in a coastal US state, was distributed by an American company in another state, and sold by a sales rep from the neighboring state. Therefore, clearly the scenario you describe is an international transaction, as you reaped the benefits of theis internation and multi-state transaction.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 8:45 pm #
“andy – Is there anything, in your view, that the government cannot do?”
Loads. For example, they can regulate commerce, but they can’t abridge the freedom of speech.
“So, if my doctor lives on my block has his practice in a building just down the street and I choose to pay him with cash, how does that constitute commerce “among the several statesâ€Â?”
Well, for one, I’m not so sure ‘among the several states’ means it has to cross a boundary. Maybe some judge about 200 years ago decided it was, so lets go with that. The problem is that your doctor’s office is probably not just something affecting commerce in your state. JD is somewhat onto it. Your doctor’s business most certainly affects interstate commerce, just like your own growing of marijuana would affect it.
Don’t blame me. Blame the soulless logic of capitalist libertarians that find every thing an alienable and commercially tradeable good.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 8:58 pm #
We will blame the liberal activist judges that view this as a living breathing document (cue Gene Wilder) when they are looking at a Commerce Clause or 1st Amendment question, but will do mental gymnastics to restrict the sale of big game rifles. That is all on the Dems and their judges.
Andy – Though you may agree with what I wrote, I was mocking the thought process. There is not one good and logical reason why the interaction described should be viewed as anything other than a transaction between 2 willing parties, in one locale. Period.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:02 pm #
Does this phrase not mean ALL the States?
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:10 pm #
First, if you are going to start off with “The logical reason … “, that means that there is only one logical reason, so having a second does not really make sense.
Be that as it may, the first one is kind of a tautology, no? Why is something commerce? Because, it relies on commerce. Circular, that reasoning.
Despite your grammar, the second one says it is necessary and proper to regulate this, though you provide no foundation whatsoever for this. As such, we will continue to label that your assertion.
Good reasons – 0
Logical reasons – 0
Try again.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/19 @ 9:10 pm #
JD – Your scenario in #72 is not far off. Several months ago I had occasion to visit with a federal regulator. In order to establish that she in fact had jurisdiction she asked several questions to establish that the business was engaged in “interstate commerce.” At one point she said that if the company “used HP computers” then all of its activities constituted interstate commerce since they were manufactured in another state.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:12 pm #
andy – You have studiously and intentionally ignored quite a poignant and elegant question posed by Mike C, which I am going to reproduce below, in case you missed it the first time.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:14 pm #
MikeC – Sometimes, I think the Supreme Court should simply consult the text of the Constitution, rather than relying on the decisions previously made by the Court. Right now, I would bet that we are so far removed from what the Founders intended that they would not recognize our system as the one their great words founded.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 9:20 pm #
“Why is something commerce? Because, it relies on commerce. Circular, that reasoning.”
Why is something of which we are unsure “interstate commerce”? Because it affects and relies on other things which we are sure is “interstate commerce.” Its not circular to go from what we are sure to what we are unsure.
“the second one says it is necessary and proper to regulate this, though you provide no foundation whatsoever for this.”
I said it may well be. If you think it is not, go ahead and sue. In defense of how it may be necessary and proper to regulate this doctor, people would present evidence along the lines of how there being an unregulated doctor would affect the ability to regulate the regulable ones. How this doctor does in fact affect interstate commerce because he competes in it, etc… the sorts of economic effects that one transaction has on neighboring ones.
Comment by andy on 9/19 @ 9:23 pm #
“andy – You have studiously and intentionally ignored quite a poignant and elegant question posed by Mike C, which I am going to reproduce below, in case you missed it the first time.”
Probably because back when they lived, not as many things affected commerce among the several states as they do today. Plus they aren’t that infallible, and they could have just fucked up. We know on other things they did, and we’ve seriously changed those.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:29 pm #
That is a bullshite argument if I have ever heard of one. I susepct there were no magazines, TV shows, porn, campaign contributions, and the Internet back then, but the idea of Free Speech has remained intact.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/19 @ 9:30 pm #
So in other words, andy, the Constitution means whatever we say it means regardless of what it says.
Comment by JD on 9/19 @ 9:31 pm #
andy – How do you feel about John Edwards mandating treatment, and Hillary envisioning having to provide proof of health insurance at job interviews?
Comment by Rusty on 9/20 @ 4:12 am #
Doesn’t say anything about healthcare. Must be an oversite by Jefferson and mason. Go back and read your federalist and anti federalist papers andy. Therein you will devine original intent. Have a nice day.
Comment by B Moe on 9/20 @ 4:37 am #
““andy – Is there anything, in your view, that the government cannot do?â€Â
Loads. For example, they can regulate commerce, but they can’t abridge the freedom of speech.”
What about people who trade in interstate speech? Seriously, the clause you are so enamored with was necessary because the states had much more autonomy at the time the Constitution was drafted, the nation was called the United States because that is what it was, a union of semi-autonomous nation/states. The massive growth in power of the Federal Government made possible by the twisted exploitation of that clause has basically rendered the clause meaningless, and I think it is time we re-evaluated our thinking on that and the Tenth Amendment.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 5:33 am #
“I susepct there were no magazines, TV shows, porn, campaign contributions, and the Internet back then, but the idea of Free Speech has remained intact.”
Actually its changed quite a bit. Back then they used to have the Alien and sedition laws. What i’m saying has changed is that they didn’t know how big a power they were giving the feds, because they didn’t realize how big commerce among the states would come to be at a time like today.
“Go back and read your federalist and anti federalist papers andy. Therein you will devine original intent. ”
That’s what a couple of guys said. There’s a lot more people with intents there. There were signers, ratifiers, etc…
“andy – How do you feel about John Edwards mandating treatment, and Hillary envisioning having to provide proof of health insurance at job interviews?”
I think those aren’t good proposals. I think Hillary is finding some way to extend care to all while still feeding the vested interests in health care. Edwards? He’s too rational to run this country. People don’t like that sort of thinking, incentivizing preventative care and all. His messaging is way off.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 5:36 am #
“What about people who trade in interstate speech?”
What about them? We regulate many businesses activities that are speech. For example a business can’t practice deception. And credit bureaus must also abide by certain rules when they speak to your creditworthyness. We have a doctrine of commercial speech that deals with this. Much to the chagrin of some kooky originalists. But also much more in comport with the 1st amendment than the alien and sedition acts were.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/20 @ 6:01 am #
andy, everything you have said since confirms my earlier comment that you believe that the Constitution means whatever we say it means regardless of what it says.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 6:08 am #
“andy, everything you have said since confirms my earlier comment that you believe that the Constitution means whatever we say it means regardless of what it says.”
It says shall not abridge the freedom of speech. I think that means the alien and sedition acts are unconstitutional. Some kooky originalists might disagree, but I think regardless what they think, what it says is what it says.
A court recently found that means part of the patriot act is unconstitutional, because it abridges speech. Sorry Congress, the text ties your hands and you can’t quite force people to shut up like that.
Comment by Swen Swenson on 9/20 @ 7:15 am #
My, we’re just a bundle of contradictions, aren’t we? Apparently, not only is the Constitution alive, ALIVE!, it squirms and writhes as it’s tortured to fit the desires of the progs to regulate whilst not regulating.
Don’t make me remind you what Humpty Dumpty said.. Or was that John Edwards?
Comment by JD on 9/20 @ 7:47 am #
Edwards? He’s too rational
Good Allah. Look at what public schooling spits out.
Comment by JD on 9/20 @ 7:50 am #
Andy – I do not expect a rational answer, since John Edwards is now the gold standard for rational thought, but, how would you resolve the inherent contradictions in your position between Article X and the Commerce Clause, as it has come to be known. Should a subsequent clause be able to render an entire Article moot, or is that just convenient to your expansionist view ?
Comment by JHoward on 9/20 @ 8:53 am #
Blithe andy:
Mike C:
While andy roots around to find where government has ever seen to the “general welfare” of anything by underwriting programs that perpetuate poverty, racism, illiteracy, and shortly, squeezing the life out of health care, all that being the pragmatic argument the Left just as perpetually fails, I’d encourage folks, when confronted with the Leftoid abomination of classical constitutional American values and methods, to remember to always insist on legal authority.
Obviously, the entire point to the States, together with their clear, supporting, overarching language of agreement and operating structure, was to prevent what andy promotes, even tacitly: Virtually the whole of the private sector being incorporated into a Benevolent Government for the “general welfare”. Because that is the Left’s purpose.
The Left’s purpose is to make its government its and your higher moral and practical authority. Socialism and worse, because you know, it works. It works to prevent us having to worry any more.
andy’s pragmatic argument always fails and always fails miserably, which is where the wishfulness and the throwing dust in the air always comes from. The legal argument, meanwhile, never even wakes up. Yet because the books are papered over with contradictory law until such time as a SC ruling corrects 1% of them we shall have our generally welfarin’ collectivist medicine. The single most useful law any state or federal legislature could ever write is one that sunsets all other laws. The constitutional contradiction contained in current law, statute, regulation, policy, etc. — all roughly half million per state of them, is so vast and profound as to stagger the mind.
Because this is how the Founders wanted things.
So why do we want our federal medicine? For the simple reason we refuse to consider what it will bring us.
Again, andy, we HAVE socialized medicine. And it’s bullshit. It’s putting doctors under left and right; did you know that? Given that my life kinda depends now on private sector medical generosity, perhaps you can see the logic of that point. From there, kindly go work on a somewhat more principled view of the Constitution and the culture and motivations that bred it.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 6:04 pm #
“, how would you resolve the inherent contradictions in your position between Article X and the Commerce Clause, as it has come to be known.”
I think you mean amendment X. But there Isn’t a contradiction. The commerce clause and necessary and proper clause are delegations of power to the federal government. Amendment X talks about powers not delegated to the federal government.
“Yet because the books are papered over with contradictory law until such time as a SC ruling corrects 1% of them we shall have our generally welfarin’ collectivist medicine”
I’ve really only been arguing about supreme court cases.
Comment by B Moe on 9/20 @ 6:09 pm #
“Amendment X talks about powers not delegated to the federal government.”
So give me a couple of examples of these powers reserved for the state.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 6:14 pm #
“So give me a couple of examples of these powers reserved for the state.”
The general police power.
Comment by B Moe on 9/20 @ 7:23 pm #
Nope, local police are all partially funded and regulated by the Feds now. Try again.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 7:29 pm #
“Nope, local police are all partially funded and regulated by the Feds now. Try again.”
Thats not what I’m talking about. Try looking up what the “police power” or “general police power” mean.
Comment by B Moe on 9/20 @ 8:21 pm #
I know what it means, I also know it is no longer a power reserved by the states. Under your “interpretation” of the commerce clause, nothing is outside the power of the Federal Government now. Nothing. Which, if that was there intent, makes one wonder why the founders bothered with the Tenth Amendment, since they otherwise didn’t seem to be given to frivolous prose.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 8:43 pm #
“I know what it means, I also know it is no longer a power reserved by the states.”
The feds can spend to get lots of things done. For example, they spend money on law schools and thus get them to follow their policy on homosexual recruiting.
“Which, if that was there intent, makes one wonder why the founders bothered with the Tenth Amendment, since they otherwise didn’t seem to be given to frivolous prose.”
Its frivolous no matter how big the commerce clause is. All that it says is that which is not delegated is not a power of the feds. Which is obvious.
Comment by B Moe on 9/20 @ 8:51 pm #
“Its frivolous no matter how big the commerce clause is. All that it says is that which is not delegated is not a power of the feds. Which is obvious.”
You are really quite dense, aren’t you? You have no clue how revolutionary a document the Constitution was, or how profound the philosophy it represents, so it is completely beyond you to fathom what has been lost.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 9:09 pm #
“You are really quite dense, aren’t you? You have no clue how revolutionary a document the Constitution was, or how profound the philosophy it represents, so it is completely beyond you to fathom what has been lost.”
I know plenty that has been lost from it. Plenty which I’m glad for. Its also not really my fault their revolution didn’t see just how much power “commerce” would be in 200 years. Remember, back then you had to basically get spcial permission to open a corporation, and only for a special purpose! Commerce is a much bigger beast now — perhaps they knew exactly what they were doing by tying the power of government to it.
Comment by JD on 9/20 @ 9:39 pm #
I am quite certain that a blind, deaf, and mute martian taught Con Law to andy.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/20 @ 9:47 pm #
B Moe:
andy:
By your own interpretation of the Constitution this power has not been reserved to the states but has been assumed by the states by default. Now stop me at any point if you think I’m wrong.
The only restriction on the power of the federal government you cite is that it “shall not abridge the freedom of speech.” Since state laws may not abridge freedom of speech either and considering that you accept such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause that virtually every activity somehow involves interstate commerce I think I can safely assume that, in your opinion, the federal government may regulate every activity that a state may regulate without running afoul of the Constitution.
So it would be perfectly permissible for the federal government to adopt every state code as part of the federal code. In order to enforce these new federal statutes the federal government would need to hire tens of thousands of additional officers and station them all over the country. In response it would be perfectly logical for state governments to either disband or drastically reduce their own police forces since much of their work would be redundant with that of the new federal agents. So now the federal government performs the general police power.
If we accept your interpretation of the Constitution, in which the power of the federal government is essentially unlimited, such a scenario is not probable or economically feasible. But it is absolutely not unconstitutional.
Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 10:11 pm #
“The only restriction on the power of the federal government you cite is that it “shall not abridge the freedom of speech.—
If you want, I can cut and paste the entire bill of rights. There’s even some limitations in Article I.
“I think I can safely assume that, in your opinion, the federal government may regulate every activity that a state may regulate without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Nope. The federal government cannot run state governments for example. For some reason the supreme court has read the 11th amendment to make state governments immune from certain suits in federal courts.
“So now the federal government performs the general police power.”
Only to the extent its the commerce power. Like I said, I’m not the one that made commerce so extensive a part of our country. And it was the framers that decided that the government power would track that of commerce.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/20 @ 10:27 pm #
Here’s one. Do you believe that the federal government may prohibit guns on public school property?
Comment by B Moe on 9/21 @ 4:17 am #
I suspect andy is an example of the most grevious repercussions of Federal expansionism. You are a victim of the public school system, aren’t you andy?
Comment by andy on 9/21 @ 5:42 am #
“Do you believe that the federal government may prohibit guns on public school property?”
Probably not the states guns. But I’ve heard our 9 robed masters may say otherwise.
“You are a victim of the public school system, aren’t you andy?”
I am surrounded by idiots. Whereas ya’ll are self-taught right?
Comment by Mike C. on 9/21 @ 5:42 am #
I really need to work harder so I can send my daughter to private school.
Comment by JD on 9/21 @ 5:52 am #
What is a state gun?
Comment by andy on 9/21 @ 6:04 am #
“What is a state gun?”
Like the kind that cops carry. Its owned by the state. Or county, which counts as state in the federal/state scheme. As opposed to a private gun.
Comment by Mike C. on 9/21 @ 10:10 am #
The main premise is your belief that every activity is related to commerce to such an extent that its regulation falls within the legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government. Therefore, the states’ exercise of the general police power is not a Constitutional restriction on the federal government but is rather an abdication by the federal government to the states of a power which it is Constitutionally-permissible for it to exercise if it so desires.
The point is that if you take such a broad view as yours of the commerce clause there is no power or authority that can exercised by the states that can be denied to the federal government. Thus the 10th Amendment is meaningless.
Comment by andy on 9/21 @ 5:32 pm #
“Therefore, the states’ exercise of the general police power is not a Constitutional restriction on the federal government”
It never was a resriction. And it never is dependent on the excercise.
“Thus the 10th Amendment is meaningless.”
Its meaningless because its tautological.
Comment by Merovign on 9/21 @ 7:58 pm #
Are we SURE Andy isn’t Actus? IIRC Actus used to get all lecturey and confused on the Constitution.
The whole tautological tenth thing is almost a giveaway.
Comment by andy on 9/21 @ 10:24 pm #
I don’t quite get your beef, but these ideas concerning the 10th have been around for a while, and have gained some measure of acceptance:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html
Trackback by Porn Bus on 9/26 @ 12:23 pm #
Porn Bus…
0…
Trackback by Credit Repair Fees on 11/6 @ 1:32 pm #
Credit Repair Fees
Their fees Fill in your loan amounts, credit card balances and other outstanding debt. This cou
Trackback by EZ Credit Car Loans on 5/22 @ 3:01 am #
EZ Credit Car Loans
Trackback by Herbs For Male Enhancement on 6/6 @ 1:54 am #
Herbs For Male Enhancement…
to wear and sweared to me would mean the actual male enhancement herb penis icine- tribulus…