Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

It depends on the Judge and their interpretation of the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and happiness may cause some to think that this is necessary to allow the right of life while a judge basing it on the same text can say that it infringes on liberty.

halonachos wrote:

Phryxis wrote:Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

It depends on the Judge and their interpretation of the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness may cause some to think that this is necessary to allow the right of life while a judge basing it on the same text can say that it infringes on liberty.

You left out two very key words. Plus those aren't in the Constitution. They're in the Declaration of Independence.

Phryxis wrote:Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

Thankyou for being consistent. And yeah, it is a real mess when two courts have ruled it constitutional, and now a third does not. Over here the only court able to rule on whether a law is allowed under the federal constitution is the High Court, our highest court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:It depends on the Judge and their interpretation of the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and happiness may cause some to think that this is necessary to allow the right of life while a judge basing it on the same text can say that it infringes on liberty.

Those aren't part of the constitution, and this matter rests on the interpreation of the commerce clause.

Stormrider wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Phryxis wrote:Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

It depends on the Judge and their interpretation of the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness may cause some to think that this is necessary to allow the right of life while a judge basing it on the same text can say that it infringes on liberty.

You left out two very key words. Plus those aren't in the Constitution. They're in the Declaration of Independence.

Meh, the 'pursuit of' part was cut off after federal laws allowed McDonald's a monopoly in the fast food industry, they were the only ones to sell 'happy' meals so everything else was just unamerican.

Anywho, point still stands there judges who have different views of what the Constitution means. Constructionist or Creationist and some other type I think, haven't had AP Gov for over 5 years.

halonachos wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Phryxis wrote:Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

It depends on the Judge and their interpretation of the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness may cause some to think that this is necessary to allow the right of life while a judge basing it on the same text can say that it infringes on liberty.

You left out two very key words. Plus those aren't in the Constitution. They're in the Declaration of Independence.

Meh, the 'pursuit of' part was cut off after federal laws allowed McDonald's a monopoly in the fast food industry, they were the only ones to sell 'happy' meals so everything else was just unamerican.

Anywho, point still stands there judges who have different views of what the Constitution means. Constructionist or Creationist and some other type I think, haven't had AP Gov for over 5 years.

Strict Constructionist is what you're looking for. I wish more judges would use the Constitution as the rubric to determine what' right instead of change it into something it was never supposed to be. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court, which *surprise surprise* was loaded with FDR appointees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn for a link to the case.

halonachos wrote:Anywho, point still stands there judges who have different views of what the Constitution means. Constructionist or Creationist and some other type I think, haven't had AP Gov for over 5 years.

So you're acknowledging that what is and what isn't constitutional is highly subjective, and not cut and dry, which would be in direct contradiction to your earlier post;

"This whole fine if you don't have health insurance is pure unconstitutional gak"

It shouldn't be up to a judge whether they think it is Constitutional, if it isn't, it isn't. Judicial review has literally made the Judicial Branch the one part of Government that has no check or accountability on it anymore. Sure, judges can be impeached, but it's never for them being a believer in a "living document".

Nope, I'm saying that it is unconstitutional(the same as taxing people to breath). Its just that some judges may not see a reason to deem it as unconstitutional. That and in some cases things are actually cut and dry. Unfortunately when it comes to government, nothing is 100% true either way.

What we need are the judges who said that the federal government placing a ban on firearms and narcotics in schools was unconstitutional, too much politics in the judiciary side of the government now.

Unfortuantely, we don't have completely objective justices at any level. They're humans too, they can't be objective.

Stormrider wrote:It shouldn't be up to a judge whether they think it is Constitutional, if it isn't, it isn't. Judicial review has literally made the Judicial Branch the one part of Government that has no check or accountability on it anymore. Sure, judges can be impeached, but it's never for them being a believer in a "living document".

Then who would consider if a law is constitutional, if not the courts?

halonachos wrote:Nope, I'm saying that it is unconstitutional(the same as taxing people to breath). Its just that some judges may not see a reason to deem it as unconstitutional.

So you're saying you know better than many judges? Do you really believe that, considering you thought the opening of the declaration of independence was part of the constitution, and that you couldn't even remember the names of the different schools of thought on how to interpret the constitution?

I am not saying that it wasn't up to the Courts, but it's an unchecked power at the federal level. There's no way for a SCOTUS ruling to be overturned unless it's done by the SCOTUS. That's a little bit of a problem when the Three Branches are supposed to be co-equal.

Stormrider wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Not to mention that the Government could imprison and fine you for not buying health insurance under this bill. This was a legal (but Unconsitutional) way for the Federal Government to compel to buy something, which is not allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ahtman, State Governments are a bit different in their jurisdiction. Several states don't have income or sales taxes, yet the federal government does have an Income tax. States have sovereingty over their own domain with regards to their own commerce and rules (like Auto insurance). I don't agree with compelling Auto insurance on people, but it does make sense to have it.

funnily enough they couldn't because in the bill it specified that they could not prosecute someone for not buying health insurance, so they could ask really nicely for you to pay but otherwise they couldn't do squat

Really? Why did it allow the IRS to fine you for not buying?

They can, you then subsequently not pay. They can't prosecute because one of the promises the dems made was that no one would be jailed for refusing insurance. All they can do is ask you to pay since they can't jail you, hooray for loopholes

Stormrider wrote:I am not saying that it wasn't up to the Courts, but it's an unchecked power at the federal level. There's no way for a SCOTUS ruling to be overturned unless it's done by the SCOTUS. That's a little bit of a problem when the Three Branches are supposed to be co-equal.

Sure, but the alternative is worse. If judges could be removed whenever they ruled against laws created by the legislative branch, they'd have no power. As it is, they have absolute power in oversight, but it's only a passive power - they can review laws created by the legislative, they can't invent laws of their own (unless they go about expanding a power dramatically as per Roe v Wade, in which case I'd agree with you).




Meanwhile, it's coming out that the judge who ruled in this case is part of a GOP consulting firm that campaigned against healthcare reform. The Virginian AG who brought this case to court actually used the company during the last election cycle.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm.php?ref=fpblg

Stormrider wrote:That's a little bit of a problem when the Three Branches are supposed to be co-equal.

They are? Who made that determination? It certainly isn't in the Constitution.

Ahtman wrote:If one can't be forced by law to buy insurance, what does this mean for all the states that legally require car insurance?

Oh snap. Us technicians have been saying that for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote: That's a little bit of a problem when the Three Branches are supposed to be co-equal.

They aren't. There is usually one dominant branch...so happens to be the executive branch in the post Bush era...shocking. There are periods in history where the judicial branch wielded power far more openly than they do these days.

Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance. All states require that you buy automobile insurance if you wish to drive a car on public roads, but 'you must do X if you want to do this optional thing' is very different than 'you must do X no matter what'. Also, no state (that I'm aware of) requires that you buy car insurance to protect yourself, they just require liability insurance, which makes sure that if you cause damage to someone else, they get paid, which is again a very different concept from health insurance.

It is not mandatory to drive a car, it's just much more convenient and tends to allow you more luxuries. You can walk, bike, take public transportation, not leave the house, get someone else to drive you, take a cab, and otherwise move from one place to another without actually driving a car of your own. Even in cities like LA or in rural areas there are people without cars, so while you might not WANT to deal with not having a car, it's clearly possible to live without a car.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance. All states require that you buy automobile insurance if you wish to drive a car on public roads

My god, you have the uncanny ability to restate arguments already made several times in a short thread. You must go share this with others. Get a van and travel the land like Cane in Kung-Fu, helping people after the fact.

it's clearly possible to live without a car.

And no one ever said otherwise, but in a country that was, in many cases, designed with car travel in mind and minimal public transportation it is a huge problem and limits ones options in the extreme.

And again, do you really think that will keep someone from filing a law suit? We are talking about one of the most litigious countries in the world. I also don't know if I would call them 'very different' beasts. They are different to be sure, but the US Federal government and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge are very different, the Fed and States still have similar foundations in western tradition.

Ahtman wrote:My god, you have the uncanny ability to restate arguments already made several times in a short thread. You must go share this with others. Get a van and travel the land like Cane in Kung-Fu, helping people after the fact.

So what I'm seeing here is that you don't have any real argument against what I said, so you're trying to divert attention from the vacuousness of your position by complaining that other people have made similar arguments that you also have no real response to.

Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

And no one ever said otherwise, but in a country that was, in many cases, designed with car travel in mind and minimal public transportation it is a huge problem and limits ones options in the extreme.

You said otherwise. Calling an idea "both funny and sad" means you "said otherwise."

And again, do you really think that will keep someone from filing a law suit? We are talking about one of the most litigious countries in the world.

What do you mean 'again'? This was my first post in the thread, as you noted. What does someone filing a lawsuit have to do with anything I said? Why are you talking as though I, at any point, said that no one would ever file a frivolous lawsuit arguing this issue?

I also don't know if I would call them 'very different' beasts.

States have a lot more power to regulate individual behavior than the federal government under US law and aren't subject to a number of constitutional restrictions that apply to the federal government. Meanwhile states have essentially no power to regulate things outside of their borders or to engage in foreign policy, while the Federal government does.

Ahtman wrote:And no one ever said otherwise, but in a country that was, in many cases, designed with car travel in mind and minimal public transportation it is a huge problem and limits ones options in the extreme.

You mean America was designed to be so vast that it has several different time zones? No wonder you're all screwed up. Think smaller next time, make something which doesn't take a week to drive across, like the Isle of Man; you can drive around it in an hour.

Wow, I'm a little surprised by the "Judicial review should be banned! The Legislative Branch should be free from the pesky restrictions laid out in the Constitution!"

The courts should have final say on whether or not a law is constitutional. They are checked in this power by 1) the ability for them to be impeached, 2) the fact that they're appointed by the Executive and approved by the Legislative, and 3) if you really don't like that they said something is unconstitutional, just amend the constitution!

Oh, and car insurance is a totally different issue. Please stop bringing it up. No one requires that you have insurance for your own car, they require that you have insurance for those times you're at fault in an accident to cover the other guy's car and health costs. In fact, some states even allow you to get by with no insurance at all if you have a registered account with enough cash in it to cover any potential damages you cause.

As someone who has little knowledge of the contents of the american constitution, couldn't they simply make it a "health care insurance tax" or something like that, letting people who already have insurance not pay, and be done with it? I'm assuming that the federal government is allowed to tax the inhabitants?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As someone who has little knowledge of the contents of the american constitution, couldn't they simply make it a "health care insurance tax" or something like that, letting people who already have insurance not pay, and be done with it? I'm assuming that the federal government is allowed to tax the inhabitants?

It's actually really tricky. When the constitution was first set up, Americans were really anti-tax. So, Congress has all sorts of restrictions on exactly what it can and can't tax. It's not just a broad "Congress can tax people".

And, I have no idea if this tax would be constitutional, but I don't think it would be.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Ahtman wrote:My god, you have the uncanny ability to restate arguments already made several times in a short thread. You must go share this with others. Get a van and travel the land like Cane in Kung-Fu, helping people after the fact.

So what I'm seeing here is that you don't have any real argument against what I said, so you're trying to divert attention from the vacuousness of your position by complaining that other people have made similar arguments that you also have no real response to.

Yours is oblivisly to not read a thread, restate arguments made several times, then get bitchy when it is pointed out that you added nothing becuase you didn't pay attention. And on top of it you missed the point. Why would I argue against what you said when I never disagreed with it when it was brought up the first 2 or 3 times?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:What do you mean 'again'? This was my first post in the thread, as you noted.

I mean that this point has already been brought up and discussed. Just becuase you didn't read the thread doesn't mean people haven't already posted things in it.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:What does someone filing a lawsuit have to do with anything I said?

If you read the thread you would know. Welcome to page two. If you read (I know I am asking a lot) my argument has never been to do away with the laws, and I really have never come close to saying that either, but wondering what would happen if this were ruling holds in regard to the car insurance laws. My guess is that some whackos will take a swing at them. See, you didn't even know what point was and you were arguing.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:States have a lot more power to regulate individual behavior than the federal government under US law and aren't subject to a number of constitutional restrictions that apply to the federal government. Meanwhile states have essentially no power to regulate things outside of their borders or to engage in foreign policy, while the Federal government does.

Their functions may vary somewhat, but they aren't radically different systems. They are all based on the same foundations and use similiar processes and reasoning. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the same in Federal or State law. Compare it to Chinese legal system, or the Taliban, or the Klingon High Council. Those are very different, not just different.

Grakmar wrote:No one requires that you have insurance for your own car, they require that you have insurance for those times you're at fault in an accident to cover the other guy's car and health costs. In fact, some states even allow you to get by with no insurance at all if you have a registered account with enough cash in it to cover any potential damages you cause.

OH MY GOD READ THE THREAD

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As someone who has little knowledge of the contents of the american constitution, couldn't they simply make it a "health care insurance tax" or something like that, letting people who already have insurance not pay, and be done with it? I'm assuming that the federal government is allowed to tax the inhabitants?

That, despite public protestations to the contrary, was actually the argument the Obama administration was putting forth. Good thing they never tried to raise our taxes...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As someone who has little knowledge of the contents of the american constitution, couldn't they simply make it a "health care insurance tax" or something like that, letting people who already have insurance not pay, and be done with it? I'm assuming that the federal government is allowed to tax the inhabitants?

Back when America was just starting we had a thing called the Articles of Confederation in which the federal government had no power at all, after we realized that it wasn't working we created the Constitution which put the Federal and State governments in their respective places. The federal government and the state governments both have the right to tax which gives us a State Tax and a Federal Tax.

States also have a sales tax that goes directly to the state and therefor depends on the state, we have a 5% tax where I live because we get a lot of money from tourists and military bases. Other states have 7% and etc.

Commerce laws were also made.
The federal government gets control over interstate commerce while states handle their own business. This means that each state sets their own standards for Right of Consent, driving license ages, etc.

However, the federal government can offer grants if the states decide to follow along with what the federal government proposes. The only reason why guns and alcohol/tobacco products aren't allowed in or near elementary schools is because the federal government pays state governments to go along with it.

Each state has different laws concerning driver's insurance because it usually concerns local/state areas, and people don't complain too much about drivers insurance because buying a car isn't mandatory and if you happen to injure someone with your vehicle the injured party needs to be compensated and people usually don't carry that kind of cash around.

Virginia moved on it seeing as though the health insurance affects Virginian citizens and passed a law saying that health insurance will never be mandatory for Virginians. Our state citizenship is not related to interstate commerce and so the federal government should have no right to say that we have to have health insurance.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance.

I fully support the ability to make voter based choices on a state and local level instead of relying on federal law. Ah if only it were so!

Peter Wiggin wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance.

I fully support the ability to make voter based choices on a state and local level instead of relying on federal law. Ah if only it were so!

Except for when we do use state regulations for most things. State's only follow federal regulations because they make money by doing so.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance.

I fully support the ability to make voter based choices on a state and local level instead of relying on federal law. Ah if only it were so!

Awww, we've got an idealist here. He's kinda cute.

I agree that this idea sounds great on paper. But, I think you seriously underestimate the idiocy of the average voter. The average voter also doesn't have the time to carefully analyze complex issues and determine what's actually best. Elected officials allow us to voice our opinion without having to sit down for hours on end to determine what the difference to the economy and the state budget would be from a 4.5% sales tax to a 4.7%.

I mean, look at the stupid decisions currently made by Congress. And they're (in theory) supposed to be experts at this stuff. What hope do the rest of us have?

Actually, the damn TV allows a lot of garbage to get through and a lot of ideals to be expressed.

I believe Goering said that the radio was the only reason Hitler was able to come to power and that he feared what new similar technologies would bring.

halonachos wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance.

I fully support the ability to make voter based choices on a state and local level instead of relying on federal law. Ah if only it were so!

Except for when we do use state regulations for most things. State's only follow federal regulations because they make money by doing so.

Yeah, times they are a changing, but not fast enough for my taste. Still, with things like prop 19 on the table and the recent AZ rules on MMJ its obvious that state law vs federal law is going to be a serious issue in the future.....at least in some states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the fact that state and federal governments are very different beasts, no states require you to buy automobile insurance.

I fully support the ability to make voter based choices on a state and local level instead of relying on federal law. Ah if only it were so!

Awww, we've got an idealist here. He's kinda cute.

I agree that this idea sounds great on paper. But, I think you seriously underestimate the idiocy of the average voter. The average voter also doesn't have the time to carefully analyze complex issues and determine what's actually best. Elected officials allow us to voice our opinion without having to sit down for hours on end to determine what the difference to the economy and the state budget would be from a 4.5% sales tax to a 4.7%.

I mean, look at the stupid decisions currently made by Congress. And they're (in theory) supposed to be experts at this stuff. What hope do the rest of us have?

Guilty as charged!