Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: The View from the Island

The House Passed "Healthcare".... So What?

184 Comments
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 1:25 PM Dave M writes:

Not really

" Without Snowe and Lieberman, Reid can't stop a filibuster, and neither will vote for cloture if it contains the "public option", which Reid's version does. So, he doesn't have the 60 votes he needs"


i hate to say this but this is nonsensical.

I know what they said but their actions in the past few weeks say they will support it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 1:52 PM BrianR writes:

Well, Dave


In that case, they'll have publically lied on a very big issue, and will face the consequences for that.

Frankly, I'm MUCH more interested in the legal challenge looming on any "mandated" participation.

That's huge. It's been completely underplayed until very recently, and frankly has the potential to undo this whole thing.

Any "mandate" is completely unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the power nor authority to "mandate" that anybody buy anything.

Any such mandate would be enforced by the imposition of a "tax penalty", which is a de facto civil/criminal fine for failiung to act in a government-approved fashion. This raises several other issues.

Enforcement would require people to report personal medical information on their tax returns. This is a violation of medical confidentiality, as well as infringing the Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination.

The fine would be imposed without "due process", banned under the Fourth Amendment.

Further, this law would be, by definition, a Bill of Attainder, banned under Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution itself.

Those who try to say it's the same thing as state requirements for auto insurance are also way off base. First of all, states have a lot of powers the feds don't. Further, there's NO requirement that everyone buy insurance in order to drive. There's only a requirement that cars driven on public roads be insured, and only for damage to the property of others. If you own a car that's never driven on public roads, it never has to be insured. If as a licensed driver you only drive other people's cars, you never have to buy insurance. Further... you're NEVER required by law to insure your car against damage to ITSELF. If you never drive at all, you never have to get insurance. State car insurance laws are completely irrelevant to the discussion.



I think I'll add this comment to the body of the essay.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:11 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

I agree

This means little.

At most it means Nancy can say she did her part...

I think the legal challenge would be fascinating. This bill goes so far beyond what is allowed it is almost laughable. Of course, it has to be challenged, and someone has to do that. To challenge, someone must be hurt..

It will happen (the challenge), and watching it all play out will be fascinating.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:17 PM thewittymermaid writes:

From my perspective

I hope the AMA loses what is left of its hollow membership, such that their roll reflects < 20% of doctors--in line with national stats that < 20% of Americans are hard leftists.

Many physicians I know canceled membership last evening. At minimum, consequences are already starting to roll in.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:23 PM The Crawfish writes:

On top f that...

the House Dim-ocrats refused to pledge that the no-abortion-funding part of the bill would remain in the final version. If it isn't in there, the reconciled bill will NOT pass the House.

This issue will still be unresolved when the 2010 elections roll 'round. The House won't vote for any bill that doesn't have the "consumer option" and does have abortion funding. The House leadership won't allow a bill to come out of reconciliation without the abortion funding. The Senate won't vote for any bill that HAS the socialist option. Stalemate.

The vote last night was simply cover for the bluedogs to get re-elected.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:25 PM The Crawfish writes:

thewittymermaid

The AMA's house of delegates is going to vote on Monday to revoke the endorsement of the plan. The AMA's political leadership made the endorsement in violation of the bylaws of the organization.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:25 PM BrianR writes:

VDad, Mermaid


VDad, I agree; the legal challenge will be fascinating.

Frankly, it'll be easy for just about anyone to start the ball rolling, whether or not they have health insurance: simply refuse to answer any question on the tax return as to whether or not you have health insurance, citing Fifth Amendment and medical confidentiality issues.

I assume the government's default response will be to impose the "penalty"... and voila! Lawsuit!



Mermaid, I'm with you!

AARP should take it in the shorts, too.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:26 PM The Crawfish writes:

Brian and VADad

How many court challenges will there be? Besides the mandates, there are hundreds of Constitutional violations sprinkled throughout the bill.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:27 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Craw


Absolutely. You're right.

Man... the reconciliation process is gonne be a bear, if anything even comes out of the Senate.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:40 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

The legal challenge

In theory, you are right, and as such its possible to see many challenges... Will they combine them? Will they choose one of the many? When will the court hear it? What about enforcing in the interim? What will the court conclude?

The whole thing will be fascinating, but the choice of suit could be very important in determining the outcome.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 2:47 PM BrianR writes:

Craw, VDad


Good questions.

My guess is that as it goes up the legal ladder, they'll incorporate the cases, choosing the strongest ones, and those with the broadest issues in play. Kind of like they did with Heller.

Craw, you're right. This thing's a mess of an abortion. It's broadly unconstitutional, on an absolute plethora of issues.

The great thing about challenging the mandate is that even if it ALONE is thrown out, financing the rest of it becomes completely impossible. If nothing else, they'd have to repeal it.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:07 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Heller, though

Took years to find and develop.

If I rememebr right, they waited for the perfect case...

Do we have that patience now?

If we wait too long, it will only be that much harder to get through.

Realistically, I think it'll get challenged broadly and quickly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:27 PM Speedicut writes:

thanks for they analysis, BrianR

These psychotic congress people on the Left scare me. They remind me of the characters from the film "A Boy and His Dog", especially the smiley-faced Bella Pelosi!

If the bill goes into the New Year it will certainly be in big trouble. People will have the post holiday blues plus they will get their credit card bills in January. Obama's year anniversary will also be the story. Bad timing for the Left. Unemployment numbers and sales numbers etc will come out at the same time as well. The people will not be in a charitable mood, no sir.

Alright, we simple folk can see that the Bill is unconstitutional but what is it that the Pelosis and Reids know that we do not? The 3rd ranking House Dem/lib Clyburn says that Congress does lots of things that aren't constitutional. What audacity!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 4:15 PM Donnie writes:

Liberal Utopia

One step closer? who will be Obama's "Death Czar"? you know the one who will decree soft Euthanasia(with hold medical care)from anyone who will cost the system money like the elderly,anyone with physical handicaps or deformities,children or anyone of any age with incurable diseases or the unborn with diagnosed health problems.How are they going to PAY for this "free medical care"?,it will cost trillions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 4:42 PM Gray Ghost writes:

Legal Challenges & Revolution

Brian, since Thursaday I have helped place my mother-in-law in a nursing home, rented my first office for my small consulting engineering firm (after being located for 12 years at my home), and helped my daughter and son-in-law move the first load of their stuff to my home.

To say I have been busy is an understatement.

As you and others have stated, the legal challenges will be interesting. But what is even more interesting from my view point is what the doctors (that I have been working with on my mother-in-law) have said.

Crawfish mentioned the "AMA's House of Delegates". Both of these doctors assured me that if the AMA's delegates don't vote to revoke the endorsement of the plan, they both plan to withdraw from the AMA.

And both are preparing, along with their fellow Mississippi doctors thru their state organization, legal challenges and backup plans to basically tell the federal government to go to h*ll.

And to make matters worse, this is looking more and more to the average "Joe" on the street like your standard US Congress "scr*w you" as all federal legislaturers still appear to be exempt.

At the local Wally World right after lunch, I talked to 4 old friends who were buying every 12 gauge, 30-06, and .38 Special round the store had in stock (over $1000.00 worth). And this wasn't for the start of deer season. They were angry. And all 4 are former military and law enforcement personnel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 5:06 PM Jim writes:

don't be so sure

they can put in or take out whatever they need to pass it in the senate. when they get to reconciliation they can put whatever they want in it. they'll rewrite the whole thing and make it into exactly what they please. and though i'm not sure of this, i have heard that the senate only needs to get 51 votes to pass the reconciliation. and the house will find their 218.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 5:45 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Yes many of us know it's unconstitutional.

Remember we also knew that McCain/Feingold also was.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:02 PM Nee writes:

And Brian....

I am gonna love it when "she" the fat lady, sings...Do you remember in basic training, singing...
"na, na, na, naaaa, hey, hey, hey...gooood-bye!!" 2010.


Also agree that there are many violations of the Constitution...namely treating us like criminals for exercising our rights as citizens.
How would a Constitutional convention come into play, if at all and, what about reconciliation and repeals?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:06 PM Nee writes:

PS

Another shameless plug for those who missed it...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:07 PM Cynewulf writes:

I so hope Tom Coburn

reads the entire bill on the Senate floor. I would love to see that. Not saying it can't happen, but I'm not worried about a final bill making it's way to the Big O's desk.

A couple of interesting essays on it for those interested:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/08/is-this-the-high-wate r-mark-for-obamacare/

and

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/08/maybe-this-time/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:20 PM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian

I missed it by one. LOL! I didn't see Cao coming. This was never close, just stage managed.

I agree with your assessment. We have just been treated to yet another Red Nanny production of political high theater. It was almost identical to the cap and tax vote and she will continue this tactic as long as she has this large majority.

Reid can pass a bill free of most of the stumbling blocks and get it all back in the reconciliation process when he only needs 51 votes. Failing that, they leave it out and then and then put it back during markup.

Meanwhile, blue dogs are free to keep this big majority alive because they can say, they didn't vote for it.

SCOTUS is a crap shoot at best since Kennedy can go either way. Best part, it takes years to get there. IMO, killing it before it becomes law is still the best option.

We have to keep the pressure on and try to push into next year. Blue dogs are going to have to be forced to agree to run on a platform of repeal on the issues they voted against but passed anyway.

Democrats are democrats, I don't believe in fiscally conservative democrats anymore than I do unicorns!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:56 PM Dave M writes:

Respons to BrianR

Brian:

I like what you added to your article. I was a bit concerned that you were putting your hopes into Lieberman and Snowe-both of whom are liberals and entirely undependable.

I suppose my pessimism comes from the fact that the courts have shown no predisposition to uphold the Constitution and the Republicans have no power to stop anything and when they did lacked the intestinal fortitude to use it.

So if this is going to be corrected we are going to have to do it ourselves. And that takes time and sustained effort over several election cycles. In the meantime we have to put up with this idiocy that no rational person should have even considered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:04 PM Tazzmax writes:

Great stuff Brian.

I think "Pigliosi" knows deep down that it'll probably not make it through the senate.

She's just hunting for political cover by blathering her bs.

Hopefully all the hot air will go out of their baloon by the end of the year as the "RATs and RINOs" start worrying about the "010" elections.

As some here have already said, I don't hold a lot of faith in the SCOTUS,....there's been plenty of stuff they shoulda ruled unconstitutional over the years,.....and failed to do so.

I guess WTP will have to keep hammering the bastages and remind them that paybacks will be a mother come election day.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:08 PM clyde writes:

Brian R

Good post,and outstanding comments. Count me in with jevica. Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law,saying SCOTUS would fix it. Good thing we haven't held our breath on THAT. I found it odd that when Boehner was giving his schpiel on it,he made NO mention of the un-Constitutionality
of ANYTHING in this bill,nor did the minority whip,Cantor. I can't remember off the top of my head who it was,but a rep.from Ohio DID come out and raise the issue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:14 PM BrianR writes:

Thanks


to all for those great comments: VDad, Speedi, Donnie, Gray, Jim, Jev, Nee, Cyne, Sarge, Dave, Tazz, Clyde. Some great points raised there. And thanks for the kind words, too.


A couple of things I'd like to address specifically.

Jim, you're right. Reconciliation is a simple majority vote from both houses. But the problem's on the Dem side; their own internal war over going too far, as the GOPers really don't even have a dog in this hunt. And if it drags on the Senate side into next year, there may not be anything to even try to "reconcile". That kind of delay could simply be the kiss of death. Look at the two attempts at scamnesty, in 2007 ans 2008... both killed by the public's outrage and the political hacks' fear. Same thing could EASILY happen here.


Dave, Jev, VDad,Clyde, on the lawsuit front: there's actually plenty of time... because this stupid law wouldn't even go into effect until 2014! Some big "emergency", huh?

Plenty of time to get the case together and move it forward.

As to the McCain/Feingold example: it's being torn to pieces at SCOTUS, with Wisconsin RTL v. FEC, and now the "Hillary movie" case.

It's almost dead already, and the current "Hillary movie" case will drive a stake through its heart, I'm very confident.





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:20 PM BrianR writes:

Self-correction


The scamnesty attempts were 2006 and 2007.

IMO, a contributing factor (at least!) to the GOP losing their majorities in both houses.

The peeps hate to be ignored... as the Dems will soon learn.

A BUSH proposal, too, btw.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:33 PM Jim writes:

hoping you're right, Brian

I'm way sceptical. I never cease to be amazed at the brazenness of the libs. my fear is they'll buy off Snowe and whoever else they need and not worry about what's in the bill that goes to recon. At that point, the public option goes back in, as well as abortion coverage. With only needing 51 votes in the senate at that point it's gravy. And I hold no hope whatsoever that the supposed moderate/conservative dems in the house will stick to their guns the second time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:39 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Not going to happen till '14?

Hadn't seen that detail (this damnlaw school thing gets in the way of a lot of details). That's really kind of funny.

Also plenty of time to get rid of the law even after it may be passed. I am sure it has something saying they can't do that, but that's always a farce...

And yes, plenty of time to put together a story otherwise...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 8:41 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

BrianR

Good news and I'm hopeful that we can beat these bstards back. I agree speedicut:

These psychotic congress people on the Left scare me.

They're like the zombies in night of the living dead!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 10:45 PM Sheila writes:

Brian...

Nothing is for sure with the left being in total control... the thing I worry about is the Senate "tweaking" the house bill just enough to get the thing passed.

Gunny G has a point... the dems are like zombies going for blood... ours! LOL Good one, Gunny!

Btw... major correction... it's not the Christmas break. It's the "Holiday" break!!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 11:07 PM BrianR writes:

Jim, VDad, Guns, Sheila


Jim, even if it passes... so what?

On to court! Hell, I'll file the first lawsuit myself.



VDad, yeah. Funny how no one seems to be paying much attention to that little factoid: 2014!

Some "emergency".


Guns, Sheila, this is nothing new.

Heller. Wisconsin RTL v. FEC. ACLJ v. FEC. Liberal laws are being shot down in SCOTUS left and ... well, left.

Again. If this thing becomes law, it's only the first step.

It'll never stick.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 11:34 PM moshe writes:

Brian

Good essay.

Well-argued, and clearly presented.

And I certainly feel a lot better about the situation for having read it.

--However--

Your central premise seems to be that the whole thing is unconstitutional.

I of course agree.

But my question is this:

Since when has "unconstitutionality" been any kind of consideration in Washington?

I would argue that the entire republican platform is based on the usurpation of the constitution.

After all, what was Lincoln's presidency if not that?

I would argue, moreover, that the "civil rights" act under Johnson was unconstitutional.

(As would, by the way, Ayn Rand.)

Does that make me a racist?

...I don't think so.

The point is, whatever happened to the so-called "civil rights" act?

Well, not a whole lot. So, in the end, when all is said and done, I'm not as sanguine as you are.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm sure that Micheal Medved would approve of this essay.

I call 'em like I see 'em.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 11:47 PM moshe writes:

Gunny and Sheila

You two are, as ever, clueless.

I understand that it gets you blog hits.

I understand that it's de rigueur.

But what YOU two don't understand is that it's not republican vs. democrat.

No.

It's liberty vs. tyranny.

And both parties are liable.

In fact, republicans are even more culpable, for they should know better.

Is that reflected in their actions?

I know what that answer is for me.

You'll have to decide what that answer is for yourselves.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 12:24 AM BrianR writes:

Moshe


Again, Moshe, the tenor of the Court has changed in recent years, and we're seeing a return to more Originalist thinking, a good thing. So we'll see how this plays out, if it even becomes law. The jury's still out on that (pun intended).


Btw, please tone down the personal insults, okay?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 8:17 AM Edamon50 writes:

Another victory that wasn't!

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are steadily getting their noses bloodied every which way you turn lately, but they pretend that with enough spin we won't be able to see the blood on their faces.
They lost every meaningful election last Tuesday, with the exception of NY-23...which wasn't that big of a deal since the seat is in play again next November. Now they have "passed" healthcare legislation in the House...that has no chance of being signed into law anythime soon. The bill lost 39 moderate Democratic votes in the House...and we are to believe that this is earth shattering change? Puh-leeze!

When you have an overwhelming majority in the House and can only pass your signature legislation by a handful of votes, you are the Biggest Loser! And with Snowe and Lieberman determined to stand against any plan in the Swenate with a public option, the Reid plan will never see the light of day. But hey, Nancy says the Democrats won on Tuesday, the President claims that the House bill is going to save the world, and the Legacy Media reports it all uncritically...so it must be true! Right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 8:53 AM philosophocon writes:

Well, Brian, Speedi,

Clyburn is right though, isn't he? After all, even I, a humble Canadian, can list a host of federal agencies, etc., that are unconstitutional yet exist and have existed for decades. Heller was a good decision, but I'm thinking that the Supreme Court's overall track record on constitutional issues has been somewhat lacking for almost a century, at least. Not enough to inspire me with a great deal of confidence, anyways.

Especially if Obama gets to pack the Supreme Court. There might not be any current openings, but if Obama is determined to turn the U.S. into Zimbabwe, look for someone to have a fatal auto "accident" while travelling the backroads close to home, something that's happened to a number of Mugabe's opponents.

Ultimately though, I agree that this issue will still be around nearer to election time, which should mean it becomes a non-issue and goes away. It should mean that, but that's also what a lot of us thought about McCain early in the primaries too, and we got a nasty surprise in the end.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 10:22 AM BrianR writes:

Ed, Philosoph



Ed, well said! That was great!


Philosoph... well, if we become an "African" nation, it's all over anyway.

I'll break out my "assault rifles", and become the Warlord of Santa Clarita.

As to SCOTUS, you have to bear in mind that Court tenor changes periodically as Justices are replaced, and the Court that sits now isn't one sympathetic to revisionist policies. That's why we're seeing a lot of important liberal programs being gutted.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 12:17 PM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian

Gramnesty! I could have hoped for a GOP spokesman that I had at least an ounce of respect for.

I am continuing to hear the mantra of what, IMO, is a total fiction. That being that there are moderate democrats. Can anyone name one important piece of legislation that was DEFEATED with the assistance of these blue dogs?

I remain convinced that their vote is strictly to make it LOOK close. They are not what they say they are until I see a piece of legislation such as health care defeated with their assistance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 12:50 PM BrianR writes:

Sarge


I don't think we'll see that "defeat". Their main effect seems to be in leavening the liberalism of the dream proposals of the Peloskovyas in Congress.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 1:40 PM Sheila writes:

Brian...

What are the chances of this bill being changed just enough to get the Senate to pass it?...

No one was expecting this to pass in the house!



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 2:27 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila


That's hard to say. Though we're talking about only a very few points of difference, they're very fundamental.

The "public option" is the big sticking point. Lieberman and Snowe both refuse to vote for it, and that leaves Reid two votes short for cloture.

Even if Snowe backs off and votes for a "trigger" version of the public option, Lieberman's still not going for it. That still leaves Reid one vote short.

If the Senate drops that option, it'll fail when it goes back to the House for approval of reconciliation.

Further, if this thing drags out past Christmas (or "the Holidays"!), I think it just disappears altogether. It'll never get any momentum built back up again.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 2:28 PM BrianR writes:

PS, Sheila


It BARELY passed in the House.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 3:08 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Yes but it did pass. Also,"Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) asked the question . . ." "If the ObamaCare proposal is so good, why do you have to imprison people who don’t want to participate?"

"Why can’t they answer? They can’t. They need to force people into the system in order to spread the costs more evenly to everyone, which is why the House took the blatantly unconstitutional path of federal mandates for health insurance. They want to solve a problem involving 13% of the American population by burdening the 87% that doesn’t have the problem at all, rather than looking for a way to reduce health-care costs for 100%."

If/when the Senate passes something there will be a conference, and something may or may not happen.

Don't forget there are enough RINOs to help the Dems when it comes down to the wire.

I agree with Sgt on this "Blue Dog" thing. When I see them unite against Pelosi, I'll believe it. I do believe that Pelosi doesn't care what happens to them election wise just so she can pass this bill.

They want to get something as law, then they can little by little change it to get what they really want.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 3:40 PM Third Eye writes:

It may mean little, but

There is no guarantee that the health care train can be stopped once it gets to the courts. I'd rather it died now, which seems to be the case.

Visit my blog for view on the morality of this vote. (thanks)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 4:00 PM BrianR writes:

Jev, 3rd Eye


Jev, you wrote:

"Don't forget there are enough RINOs to help the Dems when it comes down to the wire."

I have to say, the GOP has been remarkably unified on opposing this thing. If Snowe doesn't sign on, they'll have a 100% unified bloc in the Senate. There was only ONE GOPer signed on in the House, out of 200+ of them.



Eye, of course I agree. I think there's a better-than-even chance it doesn't become law, at least not with the "mandate" and "public option".


Be right over to your place.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 4:43 PM Tazzmax writes:

Brian,

This is off topic, but my bro sent me this and if you guys haven't already seen this, I sure do hope y'all will take a look at this! Outrageous and it confirms my beliefs that "MaoBami" and his minions are a "clear and present" danger to the survival of our country!

Please pass this on!


It’s on YOUTUBE and it’s called:
OBAMA ADMITS HE IS A MUSLIM.

HERE'S THE ATTACHMENT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 4:47 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

If the Democrats [House] hold firm they don't need any R to pass, the same in the Senate, as we well know.

Yes I do have to commend the Rs to date on their ability to hold firm. It's my usual distrust of RINOs when the chips are down. If Reid can hold all 60 for whatever bill, he won't need any Rs
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 4:55 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Remember this [Kelo]

"A decade after New London took homes away from its citizens to sell the land to a private corporation, Pfizer has decided it doesn’t want the facility after all, adding a fitting coda to a chapter of governmental abuse"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-con fidential/Pfizer-abandons-site-of-infamous-Kelo-eminent-dom ain-taking-69580497.html

"Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking"

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-pfizer1110nov10,0,766810 .story

"Pfizer To Close New London Headquarters"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 4:59 PM BrianR writes:

Tazz, Jev


Tazz, I'll check it out shortly. Thanks.

Jev, Reid doesn't have 60 Dems in the Senate. He only has 58. Lieberman's an Independant, as is Sanders (VT).

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 5:15 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Yes I know but from Sanders website;

http://sanders.senate.gov/about/

"After more than a dozen years in a Congress controlled by conservative Republicans, Sanders finds himself aligned with the Democratic majority in a chamber where the 100 senators have far greater clout than most of the 435 House members and where the tiny state of Vermont is just as formidable as the huge state of California."

"When Vermonters chose Sanders to replace retired Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., in 2006, some senators doubted whether the impassioned socialist known for his untamed white hair and fiery oratory would fit in with the staid Senate."

Joe Lieberman

"In 2006, Senator Lieberman was elected to a fourth term as an Independent, because of the strength of his record and his accomplishments for the state. He won the general election by more than 100,000 votes. He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)."

When they line up and be counted as Republicans to make an R majority leader it will be good.

Yes on an exact count Reid has 58 Ds, but. Joe Lieberman has voiced concern on health care, I hope he follows through.

BTW is it still 58 with Specter [D-PA]?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 5:18 PM BrianR writes:

Tazz


Well, that video's almost 10 minutes long, and I'm not going to watch the whole thing, but I have to say, it's completely and misleadingly misnamed, and makes a false claim.


Nowhere in what I saw does "Obama admit he's a Muslim".

He says nothing different than what I could say.

I've said "sala'am aleikum"; I've lived in Islamic countries; I have relatives who are Islamic.

So what? Does that make me a Muslim?

I don't think so, and the news would probably surprise the Presbyterian minister who baptized me.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 5:20 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Jev


The 58 includes Specter.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 10:17 PM Redhead writes:

Call me Contrarian

Call me Contrarian

Or just irreverent, but...
"There is no guarantee that the health care train can be stopped once it gets to the courts. I'd rather it died now, which seems to be the case."

I'd almost rather see it pass, and then defeat it in the courts. This would set HUGE precedence’s that should be able to knock down many further attempts by them to drive us deeper into socialism.
It would take a while, and probably take many cases, but in the end, it could save us all. If it just doesn’t get passed, they’ll just wait until next year, and the year after, and the year after… Like they’ve already done since before HillaryCare.

I say let it pass, then drive the whole thing into its grave, once and for all in the courts.
H@ll, if we can use Roe V Wade as a precedent, we may even get the liberal justices to knock it down, just to keep from losing that case.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 10:57 PM Sheila writes:

Redhead...

You bring up a good point... excuse my ignorance on this, but who would take it to court? One of the conservative organizations like ADF?

It seems that would be a good way to kill national healthcare permanently... but would it actually go to court?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 11:02 PM Sheila writes:

Brian...

That "trigger" is a scary issue...

I think the dems are going to blackmail people to get the votes...;) they want this bad.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 11:12 PM BrianR writes:

Red, Sheila


Red, there's a lot in what you say; a real benefit in going the court route. Our side's finally started using their traditional tactic, and it's working fine, though they seem to keep forgetting that we're doing it now, too.

But again, look at Heller, Wisconsin RTL, and the "Hillary movie" cases.


Sheila, anyone can take it to court under the scenario I outlined above.

Hell, I'LL do it if no one else will.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 1:35 AM Sheila writes:

Brian...

You may be it!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 11:49 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

I really think the Dems

are trying to convice the world we need this health care. A few people agree, but most absolutely do not,

The dates to enact, the desire to push through, the ignoring of the townhall meetings, and on and on we go the dems are really showing their elitism...

Its offensive to anyone with a brain.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 12:30 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Turning Roe against the Libs...

Great idea, Red.

I like it. A right to privacy could well be said to keep the government out of all health considerations. Actually, a pretty good argument...

And yeah, anyone can bring a suit who is hurt by it. Though they have to be hurt, some sort of harm.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 1:10 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

moshe

read your post to me and Sheila.

Evidently your overhanging brow prevents you from seeing all of my rebuttals to the GOP on the flaccidness in the face of the enemy.

BTW, it IS a left and right thing. How many Republicans are in the Progressive Caucus?


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 4:01 PM Tazzmax writes:

Brian,

about the video,...I agree with you that it doesn't prove he's a muslim,....but what does bother me is his pandering to them and making lying statements that Islam has been a part of this nations' religion since the beginning.

I beg to differ with that, this country was founded on Christianity and still is a Christian country, imo.

Anyway, I'll shut up on this off topic subject.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 5:20 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Tazz

I'll weigh in on the Christian nation thing. I lean in your direction, that it was more of a Christian nation than anything else.

At the time, Christianity was by far the most widespread faith and several prominent leaders were well versed in its tenets. I'd go so far as to say that Christian morals and beliefs were assumed.

But that's an important word I used-- assumed. Christianity as the dominant religion was hardly questioned in terms of its value. There was disagreement on its veracity and application, but most by and large accepted ideals that are associated with it.

But because it was assumed, it can be said the aim was not to create a sort of theocracy. I don't believe this was the goal-- the goal was to build a nation of free men based on elements of the natural law that suggest men are free to control their own lives. The goal was not to create a nation where people had to be Christian, because such a forced idea would run counter to that natural law.

Even if the aim was not to create an expressly Christian nation, the founders for the most part realized the value in following Christian morals. They highly vlaued them, and as I am sure you know many founders believed the success of the nation rested on adherence to these values.

So, was it a Christian nation? Yes and no.

How do we address that now? We remember the values behind the faith as much as we remember the name of the faith. Christianity is a powerful faith and when adhered to really does move mountains. But Christians are better served in a political situation to live the values as Christ would and not push the faith on anyone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 7:18 PM Redhead writes:

VD

(such an unfortunate set of initials...)

I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think there would be real merit in using the "Right to Privacy" under Roe V Wade to fight much of the liberal agenda.
If so many didn't just focus on what the case resulted in, rather than the actual outcome of what the case means, it could be HUGE.

Use their own tools and words against them. The Art of War is more then just a movie.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 7:23 PM BrianR writes:

Tazz, VDad


Yeah, there's no question Bat Ears is a panderer. And there's no question this country was founded on the tenets of Judeo-Christianity.

My Problem with that video is the "Admits He's A Muslim" stuff. It's simply not true; it's wild-eyed hyperbole; it does more harm to our side than good, because when his opponents can be belittled as radical lunatics, it's too easy for the other side to then be dismissive.

"Astroturfers"; "Tea Baggers". That sound familiar?

We need to stop with the "admits he's a Muslim" and the "birther" nonsense, and go after him on matters of substance.

This kind of stuff's a waste of time and energy.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 8:13 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Red

Yeah, the basis behind the right to privacy is that there are some things that are just so personal that no one should intrude. Abortion is one such thing, (says the court). The genesis pretty much began in contraceptive cases (yes, there were disputes on who could sell and buy things like condoms).

I would think certain things in health care would be that personal, and Roe is a good case for the issue. As much as it has been cut back in some ways, it technically is still good law.

I'd urge a note of caution in using the argument here, though... We'd have to be careful of ratifying the right to privacy. If we grant the right to privacy, we put ourselves in a bind on other issues, like abortion.

BTW, I am thinking of changing the name... I created it when I lived in VA. I now live in WY. I actually think Brian suggested some way back when I moved... But Wyoming Daddy just does not have the same feeling to it...

Suggestions? Anyone else?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 8:18 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Brian

I admit, I didn't watch the video. If what's at issue from the latest post is that Obama "admitted" he was Muslim, I agree with you Brian.

But that's where my contention that the assumption was a Christian nation rather than a theocratic Christian nation.

I do think the founders wanted religious freedom, and would be accepting to the myriad of faiths that are here today. So, if BO is Muslim, so what?

More to your point, Brian, is the political ramifications. I agree that it is an issue that its better to stay away from. At most it shows he can't be trusted on even what he belives spiritually. But that's not a place to spend a lot of time because spirituallity is so personal in todays world. It just ain't worth making a fuss over...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 9:04 PM Redhead writes:

Daddy-o

"We'd have to be careful of ratifying the right to privacy. If we grant the right to privacy, we put ourselves in a bind on other issues, like abortion."

Personnally, the "abortion" issue isn't such a big issue. Yes, I agree that it is akin to murder. There's more than just a lump of skin there. My wife and I have four unplanned lumps of skin now running around the house, eating our food.

But it is also so much of a personal moral issue. It should have been left up to the states, but it wasn't. Now we've got it legalized on a federal level. Let's live with it. When we let the federal government legislate morality, we end up with things like mandatory Calorie counts on Big Macs, Cancer warnings on cigarette packs, and ... Healthcare for All.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 9:06 PM Redhead writes:

Almost forgot...

"BTW, I am thinking of changing the name... I created it when I lived in VA. I now live in WY. I actually think Brian suggested some way back when I moved... But Wyoming Daddy just does not have the same feeling to it..."

I'd go for "Judicial Daddy", but I'd put a caveat in there that you have to graduate and pass the bar! Then you could be JD...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 10:21 PM BrianR writes:

VDad, Red


VDad: " Roe is a good case for the issue. As much as it has been cut back in some ways, it technically is still good law."

I disagree. It created a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. The word "PRIVACY" isn't anywhere in the Constitution. That decision relies on language more suited to astronomy than law: "emanations" of "pemubrae" of rights that exist elsewhere.

Frankly, IMO, it's a preposterous decision.

I agree somewhat with Red, in that it should have been left up to the states. I actually wrote an essay here about it a couple years ago, entitled "Murder and Roe":

http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/26/murder _and_roe.thtml

Take a look.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 12:44 AM str8_talk writes:

Brian

I agree! I have a friend who's a moderate\ Poli-Sci major who was all excited it passed. I kept my mouth shut, I knew it still had to pass the Senate - later they called me & said "It has to pass the Senate." KMD: I know with 60 votes. THEM: You knew? KMD: Yes, and there could be a filibuster. THEM: That will never happen! KMD: Of course they could use the nuclear option IF they can find 51 who are sure they'll be voted back next term! There were 39 blue dogs in the house! THEM: They aren't called blue dogs in the house. KMD: Oh I forgot, I'm a history minor, what do you call conserv dems in the house? THEM: Blue puppies! KMD: Do they train @ Blue's Clues? You realize if it's a nuke 51, the next president can undo it.

"It takes a Carter to get a Reagan!"

"I've written a blog, but it's not there due to technical difficulties! It says 'DisAllowed HTML' every time. I have an explanation for my absence as soon as I get it posted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 8:11 AM Sam writes:

Democrats and GOP versions of the plan

The GOP Health Care plan is just as bad as the Democrats. In anticipation for 2010 & 2012 when the Democrats will be wiped out politically, the Republicans are going to continue where they left off with Bush and McCain.

The indication points to the GOP alternative Health Care Plan, which is a government takeover too (not as bad, but it does include the government as a player in insurance).

If you are excited about 2010 and 2012, you might want to reconsider. The GOP is going to provide the same "BAIT" and "SWITCH" model that they have been using over the last 30 yrs.

Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty are phony hopes and GOP pretenders to counter Obama (meant to be the fall guy). Those who believe in Sarah Palin, Jindal, etc. will have to look at who they associate themselves (McCain, George W. Bush, etc). If they believe in these political cowards, they will be dissappointed.

Only a revolution that storms both political parties and scares the s**it out of the GOP and Dems is what is needed. I can't wait for Apr. 15th, 2010 in Washington (6 million-10million) man march regardless of party affiliation.

It is coming...

..
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 8:21 AM drpete writes:

What's really showing, BrianR, so

clearly is the incredible chutzpah of the federal government, whether executive or legislative branches. The judicial hasn't yet, and may not yet, weigh in on THIS issue, but recent history suggests that their chutzpah-quotient is pretty high.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 12:06 PM BrianR writes:

Str8, Sam, DrPete


Thanks, all, for the comments.

Str8, welcome back. I just clicked your name link, and all I see is an essay from back in June. I'll keep checking.


Sam, much merit in what you wrote. You know me: a Barr voter.

There are some good guys in the GOP stable: Sessions, DeMint, Coles, Issa, Bachman, some others. We'll see what happens.

DrP, it's all been very problematic lately. But SCOTUS does seem to be swinging back to Originalism/Constructionism.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 12:21 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

I wasn't clear

Though I tried to be, I did not succeed in saying the right to privacy is a court created doctrine. And that's my contention with using Roe to get rid of health care-- it would suggest that conservatives acknowledge the right to privacy.

That would hamper several other points big to conservatives.

Abortion should have been left to the states, and Alito (I think it was) kept on saying it should have been in the line of abortion cases. He also said when the court intervened, it made abortion a political issue/litmus test. All people would be bound by their stance on it, and this has played out. He said it was a mistake for the Court to get involved, and I agree.

But the right to privacy is not there, and we need to be careful to not say that it is...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 12:28 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Red

Yeah, I have two...

I think the law should be overturned, either judiciously or legislatively, but only because it is not constitutional. And I think states should act to restrict it, which is going on and is given a green light by the court.

Judicial Daddy, huh? I kinda like that.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 12:44 PM BrianR writes:

VDad


Well, the Court that decided Roe is a decidedly different Court than currently sits. That's really key to the whole thing.

A different judicial philosophy prevails. One of the few things Bush got right.. and even THAT was only after the Harriet Meyers fiasco.

Anyway, I don't think Roe has any bearing to a legal challenge to healthcare. The "mandate" is purely an exercise in government overreach, dependant on a non-existent power to force people to buy something.

Further, any self-reporting on tax returns can be challenged on 4th and 5th Amendment grounds, Bill of Attainder, and violation of medical confidentiality.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 1:55 PM Eric writes:

BrianR

Just a shot of adrenaline to the liberals before the senate gives them two Tylenols for the bill being trashed.

I could see worry in Pelosi's eyes with a 5 point margin, even if she tried to look proud. Body movement gives alot away.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 2:18 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Eric


And check out Walter Williams's column today for Peloskavya's response when she was questioned on the constitutionality issue:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/11/11/a _minority_view_constitutional_contempt

You can just imagine that deer-in-the-headlights expression on her plasticized Botoxed face.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 2:25 PM BrianR writes:

PS, VDad


On my earlier post, any tax "fine" imposed can be challenged on 5th Amendment Due Process issues, too.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 3:29 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Brian

Yeah, I know.

The conversation was using the right to privacy to assist. I agree its not necessary to use, but is a possibility.

The trouble with Roe is not in the people on the court, but the attraction to stare decisis. In subsequent cases like Casey and Stageberg the court is really trying to stick to stare decisis from Roe.

Yes, we have a different court, but in the 90's there was a different court, too. And Alito was right that the issue is still hot and can determine the fates of politicians, even judges.

There is huge pressure to keep Roe as good law...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 3:44 PM BrianR writes:

IMO, VDad


If there's going to be a successful challenge to Roe, it has to be sideways, using a different avenue. I agree that SCOTUS is going to be very loathe to just throw it out wholesale and directly.

It would have to be through the avenue of another issue. One that comes to mind is the dual status of an unborn fetus. In most states, if a pregnant woman is killed, the perp's charged with double homicide, the unborn baby suddenly becoming a victim.

Well, that's obviously a paradox in the law, and through a resolution of that paradox Roe could be revisited.

I'm sure there are others I could come up with, too.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:04 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Yup

And that's essentially what Casey and Stageberg dealt with-- sideways issues, specifically partial birth abortion.

Thy stopped short of overturning Roe, but did whittle away. In the discussion of PBA, they had to talk about abortion afresh, they put it in new light and came back from Roe's holding However, they still said an abortion is still one of those fundamental decisions that people have a right to make... This is essentially the right to privacy as defined by the court.

But what's happened is that the decisions have said while the right to the decision exists, there are just some things you can't do. These restrictions are OK as long as they don't interfere with the ability to make the ultimate decision.

And you're right about the fetus issue. This is a big reason why it has been so controversial in its own right, because it defines the result of an abortion as murder...

And health care is a different breed. While I do think our decisions on our own health care are of those that we can make on our own ("right to privacy"). But there are so many other problems with it we don't have to go there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:14 PM BrianR writes:

Well...


But that's why I avoid any "right to privacy" and instead couch it in medical confidentiality and 5th Amendment self-incrimination.

Hell, drop the "medical confidentiality" and just go with 5th Amendment self-incrimination and Due Process. That's enough right there.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:19 PM Maureen001 writes:

VADad

In order to bring a legal challenge one has to have "standing". Just being a citizen subject to a law is not considered standing by the courts. For example, most of the lawsuits brought over President Obama's birth location have been dismissed over the issue of standing. Someone who has failed to comply with the mandate to purchase insurance and has been given a penalty would have standing. But that's a long way down the road and a long time for a lot of people to believe they deserve the benefits of this legislation. Once it's passed and implemented, it will impossible to take it away. Better to stop it dead in its tracks. Better for the Ruling Class Dems to know some limitations, too. Better for the country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:24 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Agreed.

Brian, yes, its better to not even go there to the right of privacy.

Maureen, yes, standing is required, as is harm. You have to be hurt in almost any claim to bring suit.

Without some sort of injury, you're SOL.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 6:03 PM BrianR writes:

But again, as to standing


Anyone who refuses to answer a question on their tax return as to whether or not they've purchased insurance will have standing. The requirement alone is enough to assure such standing. It's a violation of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, as there's a potential penalty involved.

Further, if there's a penalty for refusing to answer the question, that's a further Due Process violation.

Then, of course, there's the Bill of Attainder issue in play, too.

That's universally applicable.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 6:08 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Yep

True dat, Brian.

If you are brought in on that charge, you will be hurt by the requirement. Hurt is not the best word there, but you have been affected, and you have standing...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 6:08 PM Tazzmax writes:

VDad,

so you live in Wyo, eh?

What a beautiful place!
I went there a couple of years ago on some small const jobs,...mostly in the area of Fort Bridger, Rock Springs, Kimmerer etc.

I wouldn't like the winters there though.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 7:06 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Laramie...

Other side of the state from Kimmerer, Rock Springs.

My dad lives in Green River, though.

It is nice... Not much here...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 9:46 AM buck writes:

As I Said Before

The liberal mindset.

They pass a law and if it doesn't work, well...

They just pass aother law saying you HAVE to obey the first law.

You beatht
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 9:49 AM buck writes:

In Texas

All you have to do to avoid the insurance costs is show financial responsibility.
I forget how much. But if you have a few bucks rat holed you don't have to buy insurance.
Same with skid lids for bikers. If you can show you have "x" (don't remember how much) hospitalization insurance you don't have to wear it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 9:58 AM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian and All

Just a quick shout out. Internet service has bouncing up and down for the last 24 hours as the flooding continues to get worse. I hate Nor'easter!

I'll be back!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:00 AM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Buck


The whole idea of equating this national health insurance "mandate" with state car insurance laws is flawed.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:14 AM BrianR writes:

Sarge


Got your water wings?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 12:22 PM Georgetwin writes:

BrianR

I suspects that Piglosi and company went over the 2008 results and said, "You won by 2%, so you vote AGAINST the bill. You won by 12%, so you vote FOR the bill"!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 1:30 PM Edamon50 writes:

new post

Give it a look and spread the word!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 5:42 PM Tazzmax writes:

VDad

Green River is beautiful.

We stopped there for beer one day after work, heehee.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 5:44 PM BrianR writes:

George, Ed


George, that's a very interesting premise. I sure wouldn't put it past her.


Ed, on my way.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 6:24 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Tazz, not much else

to do than have "one" beer there...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 6:31 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Hello all, have been away for a while

Glad to see Mr. R is still hard at it!

I was very troubled that this 2000-page monster of a bill even passed the House. Who in God's name can even understand how a 2000-page book of a statute will work in practice? How many actually read this bill? Can anyone who voted for it honestly say what the consequences will be? Does anyone honestly believe that--at a point in the future--this law WON'T be amended to include abortion funding?

As Mr. R said, the govt being involved in hc is patently unconstitutional, but medicare welfarism has been around for 40+ years hasn't it?

On another of his points about the 5th amendment...it is the same argument I've heard used by "tax protestors" saying supplying your own, personal financial info to the govt/IRS violates the 5th. However, the scotus has ruled it doesn't apply to the income tax. So, you are forced into signing an affidavit on your tax form saying all info is correct and that you are in compliance w/a tax system no one (not even the feds) can even understand. It is similar to being forced to sign a contract for the 'privelege' of travelling at the DMV stating you'll comply w/ALL statutes even though nobody can really be expected to know all of the 1000's of rules/regs of the road.

Since the "fine" for non-compliance will be called a "tax" it is not covered under 4th.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 6:32 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

more

Mr. R, you are probably more qualified than most to recognize that the feds ROUTINELY violate the constitution w/minimal interference from the scotus. Sure, there is the odd victory here and there, but over time the tendency has been for the federal courts to, eventually, go along w/trampling the constitution.

I'm sure that the Democrats will fact the music for their actions, but that won't repeal this bill if/when it passes the Senate. Heck, it wasn't so long before this passed that the Dems took some major shellackings in off-year elections...they didn't seem persuaded by said losses did they?

The Republicans also have their own version of Obamacare-lite, as usual, they are right there willing to 'compromise'. So, even IF they get back in power we shouldn't expect a repeal.

I have a very bad feeling this is gonna be like TARP and the Patriot Act: against the wishes of Americans Congress is gonna pass yet ANOTHER bad law.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 6:42 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Sorry to ramble, just so upset about

This pooh!!!

I guess I could've shortened what I said to this:

Since when did the constitution and limitations on federal power interest Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court?

I REALLY think some version of this bill is gonna pass, doesn't really matter WHICH (Democrat VS. Republican)...the push for universal hc/ins has been going on for decades...the misinformation about how wonderful the European and Canadian systems are...the mentality of so many Americans that hc/ins is a "right"...like I said earlier, once it passes we're stuck w/it forever, most likely, and it can be continually amended, once passed, to include all aspect of socialistic hc even if the original statute is a 'moderate' version.

I wonder if cap-n-tax will pass, some time soon, also?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:16 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

On the "right to privacy" discussion

going on w/i this thread:

The way I understand the constitution is that the federal govt is SUPPOSED to have clearly defined and LIMITED powers.

The feds have a few, definite, listed 'rights' while ALL others are reserved to the States and/or People.

I see nowhere in the document where the right to privacy is delegated to the feds, nor do I see this right disallowed to the States/People.

Just because particular rights aren't specifically listed in the constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Remember that our rights were considered to pre-exist the jurisdiction of govt--est. for the sole purpose of SECURING said rights. In practice, the system has more often than not worked in the reverse manner: govts actively STRIPPING us of our rights.

That said, I think a strong argument can be made that the 4th and 5th amendments do go the extra step to further secure the right to privacy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:20 PM Tazzmax writes:

Recovering Liberal,

I hope your gloomy forecast is wrong!

You are correct though about the three branches of govt,...down through the years they have constantly trampeled on the constitution with no concern, and still do.

Our duty is to find some way to stop them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:22 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Mr. R & all interested parties...

Another troubling aspect brought up in this current discussion involves the idea that the make-up of scotus (..."the current court swinging this or that way...") is more important in determining 'lawfullness' than an objective and scientific application of principles.

What this means is that PERSONALITIES have a FAR greater impact on the 'interpretation' of the law than does logic/reason. Not a good thing at all. It means there IS NO LAW, only the preference of the current members sitting on the scotus.

I believe Jefferson wanted the scotus to conduct jury trials and I must say it was probably a good idea.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:33 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Tazzmax, I've been turned on to some

Real different trains of thinking concerning the constitution, the court system, and govt itself since I was last commented here at Mr. R's excellent blog.

I guess my expectations in Congress, the President, or the Courts reigning itself (all three are aspects of the SAME entity: the federal gov) in have been considerably lowered.

I know I sound gloomy, but this hc vote really shook me up...it went from being "DOA" to passing...whether it passed by 1 vote or 100 is really immaterial isn't it?

The insanity of spending yet more trillions of $$$ on top of the many Big T's we're already in debt...I mean, the newest deficit numbers for the current fiscal year already numbers over 2 tril...at what point do people wake up and smell the bankruptcy that is fast-approaching? Instead, though, Congress seems eager to pile more and more debt on...

"Our duty is to find some way to stop them."

I agree, but how? How does one stop the momentum of Big Govt that has been building in this country for so long?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:42 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Tazzmax, you're 100% right

Look at how small the fed gov was at the Founding and look where it is now. I believe the overall tax burden was something like 2-3% and now its probably close to 50%--and destined to continue rising as long as govt keeps expanding.

While a certain ebb and flow has occured over the centuries, the overall trend (obviously) has been to ever bigger govt.

While I enjoy learning about the constitution and discussing its finer points, it must be said: it is nearly irrelevant and has failed in its stated purpose of limiting gov. Heck, people can't even agree on what it actually means anymore, it seems!

OK, sir, have a wonderful evening and keep on fighting the good fight.

I'm ranting far too much here and bid all well until next time...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:54 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Recovering

The court is dominated by personalities, as is any governing board no matter how big or small.

Good or not, the personality leans to the right at the moment. Sotomayor's additition changed the makeup little. So, if something comes through soon before Obama gets to replace a conservative, our chances are better to get it overturned.

The Consitution has been badly beaten up in the last half century. Actually, a big blow I think has come through the numerous agencies that have been created. The agencies are little governments unto themelves in that they have the power to make rules, interpret them and enforce them.

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect for me is the reaction of the general public. Far too many are to distracted by so many other things that they either don't care or fail to educate themselves. This enables politicians to manipulate things to their personal benefit.

However, I am not without hope, because as long we have a Constitution that means something, which we still do, we have hope of meaningful change.

Health care is vulnerable on so many levels to legal attack. Its also not to be instituted until much later, which really opens the possibilities even further for successful challenges or even political backlash.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 8:12 PM Tazzmax writes:

VDad

great points about the growth of govt agencies who have almost unlimited powers,...one recent one, IMO, is "Homeland Security".

The list goes on and on and on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 9:52 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Good evening to you VirginiaDad

I guess I'm at a point where it is difficult to see how govt can be rolled back. Democrat Congress, Republican President, Republican Congress, Democrat President, Right-leaning Court, Left-leaning Court...it doesn't seem to matter, govt keeps growing and growing and growing...

The alleged party of small govt (GOP) isn't about rolling back govt, they just put their own 'conservative' tweak onto existing programs--as is evidenced by them having THEIR own Obamacare-lite hc plan.

The People are routinely ignored as is the constitution, and govt controls gradually (or not so gradually) continue ratcheting-up.

Once established, welfare entitlement programs NEVER go away. Just look at social security and medicare. Both totally unconstitutional and fiscally unsustainable and both still with us after 70+ and 40+ years respectively. Even just TALKING about slightly reforming these programs is political suicide when what is really needed is to abolish them.

I may be wrong, but I believe the scotus ruled in favor of socsec based merely because it would've been politically inexpedient not to do so.

I don't think we're ever getting back to an "originalist" interpretation of the const. Again, I doubt a general agreement on what it even means can be arrived at. I've talked to many liberals who think socsec/medi is constitutional and whom also think gay marriage and abortion are protected by it. I think many on the 'Right' are also blinded when it comes to some issues. There is NO WAY these differences will ever be resolved w/i the same political system. Leaving a variety of issues at the State level (per the constitution) seems to be unacceptable to far too many.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:03 PM jevica writes:

Recovering Liberal

There is NO right to privacy in the Constitution [as SCOTUS said in Griswold v. Connecticut]. And the B.S. way that Justice William O. Douglas discovered the "so called" right was amazing and garbage. You are correct about the rights reserved to the states and people [also reason some did not want a BOR added to the Constitution.]

Looking at it that way there are a lot of rights the States have and privacy may be one of them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:19 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Reformed

You have good reason to be jaded.

I actually wrote a piece some months ago that when the Constitution become irrelevant it should be scrapped. Truth be told, I can see the result in my lifetime. As the divide grows between people's basic moral beliefs they become harder to reconcile. And it is foolish to think New York can coexist with Virginia Beach, or Rock Springs, WY. Eventually, a split at our current pace is inevitable.

However... there is still enough commonality that we can turn around.

This may be naive, but its the way I see it...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:28 PM BrianR writes:

RecLib


Good to see you again. Thanks for those comments. There's obviously a lot there, so I'll just hit a couple of the highlights.

"As Mr. R said, the govt being involved in hc is patently unconstitutional, but medicare welfarism has been around for 40+ years hasn't it?"


Yes, but so? Does that justify continually allowing the same mistakes to be made repeatedly?

As to the argument regarding the 5th Amendment, there's a HUGE difference in what this law does and simply collecting income tax, which is authorized by a constitutional amendment, incidentally.

An income tax is authorized as a means of raising revenue. This tax "penalty" is exactly that: a penalty, imposed on behavior without any Due Process -- a trial -- and which further depends on the tax filer incriminating himself by indicating on his tax return that he doesn't have health insurance.



"...the feds ROUTINELY violate the constitution w/minimal interference from the scotus."

Not anymore. I've referenced the cases which have lately been rolling back unconstitutional laws.

"... I think a strong argument can be made that the 4th and 5th amendments do go the extra step to further secure the right to privacy"

No, the 4th specifically says a person should be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". That's it. It's very limited in application. No such thing as "privacy". It doesn't extend outside the "house" or beyond their "person", for example. Even then, it's limited in scope, too. For example, you can't murder someone in the "security" of your house and expect it to not be investigated under some theory of "privacy".

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:46 AM Recovering Liberal writes:

jevica and Mr. R I guess the point

I was trying to make is that something need not be codified in the constitution to be considered a "right".

It is a listing of the govt's 'rights' not the people's.

This kind of hits at another point I was trying to make: the seeming impossibility of even agreeing on the function of this document. Here we have CONSERVATIVES arguing whether a right to privacy even exists. Amazing.

I just don't see a scotus ever really, seriously, rolling back the federal govt.

Oh, and I saw some of the pics you posted about your grandchild Mr. R...good stuff! Glad the delivery went well. I'll include a prayer for the baby in my nightly prayers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:47 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

Brian

New one up at my place when you get the chance...

Talks about being king...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:59 AM Recovering Liberal writes:

VirginiaDad, I don't find you naive

You're principled and hopeful of rectifying the current situation.

I DO believe that, underneath all the political garbage, Americans have commonality. People are people, after all, not all that different. I've never met a person who likes seeing others suffer, but whereas one believes private charity is the answer another thinks a govt welfare program is better. As a political junkie I'm sure you've attempted to reason w/libs...how has that worked out? Who is gonna voluntarily give up welfare benefits? Who wants to cut defense spending? When was the last time the federal budget actually decreased? Who's out there working to repeal the income tax?

The way I see things, currently is that the Republican and Democratic Parties are almost totally beholden to powerful special interest groups. When the chips are really down, Reps/Dems come through for the elites (TARP). The Republican and Democratic Parties are in firm control of govt. Challenging this Rep/Dem power structure is for all practical purposes imposssible. Govt has expanded to the point that it practically owns us and everything else. In a very real sense we are owned by special interest groups.

Sometimes I wonder if we're deluding ourselves to think a return to an originalist (whatever that even means) interpretation of the const. is even possible...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 3:19 AM jevica writes:

Recovering Liberal

By "rolling back the federal govt" what do you mean by that. The rights of the Federal Government are few and limited. The rights of the Federal government are those enumerated in Article I Section 8, of the Constitution.

If a "right to privacy" does exist it's not in the Constitution. It would have to be a power reserved to the states [or the people]. This right may exist but not as it's being used by government & the courts.

Can't agree on the meaning of the document? Who can't agree? The Constitution means what it says. The Founders intended the doctrine of enumerated powers to be our defense against the federal government overreaching.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 3:47 AM jevica writes:

Recovering Liberal

BTW the Democrats when asked about the Constitutionally of the health care bill show their utter lack of knowledge of the Constitution, or they don't give a damn about it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 11:04 AM BrianR writes:

RecLib


Though I agree that the C and BofR aren't a comprehensive listing of all "rights", consider this:

The Founders had -- and took advantage of -- the opportunity to address the issue of what we now call "privacy" when they wrote the 4th Amendment, and chose to limit it.


They had no problem with laws -- such as those against adultery -- that dealt with "private" matters. "Privacy" isn't absolute in any way.

They considered the states the primary agency through which such issues were determined, and anticipated wide variance in approach; the "laboratories of democracy". What would be acceptable in one would not be in another. We've wandered far afield from that.

Had they believed there was some "right" to privacy, it would have been addressed, as the rights they specifically named were considered fundamental. Such a right to "privacy" would have certainly been in such a group.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:17 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

"rolling back the federal govt"

Good morning jevica.

I think one of the easiest ways to measure the size of govt is by its budget.

When I say "roll back", I'm talking about the elimination of entire depts/programs that are unconstitutional. I'm talking about getting the feds out of areas they have no authority to be in.

Heller has been held as a great victory for constitutional freedoms, but did it do a thing to eliminate BATF, the firearms act of 1968, taxes on firearms, etc? No.

One thing that has held steady for a long time is that the federal budget always increases. Until this is reversed all the scotus decisions in the world are for naught.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:38 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Good morning Mr. R

I will not labor these points, since they are academic (i.e., the constitution/br are mostly irrelevant today). I think we fundamentally see the constitution and bill of rights differently, as well as the nature of the Union. From my studies I've determined two things about an "originalist" reading of things:

1. At the time of ratification until many years later secession was considered a State right.
2. At the time of ratification until many years later it was understood that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government.

In my mind, unless one accepts these two notions the constitution/br/Union fails to properly function.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think these two assertions can be ascertained by anyone who objectively does their homework. I know I was suprised to 'discover' these things after some intense reading the last several months.

I think the modern-day interpretations of the c/br begins w/the conclusion of Civil War and beginning of Reconstruction, after the federal government destroyed any real notion of States Rights, and after which it extended its jurisdiction over everything w/i the States--later helped by scotus decisions which altered the application of the br and very liberal readings of the Interstate Commerce clause.

So, my point (boy I'm out of breath!) would be that--absent a return to a the two points I make here--there can be no such thing as an "originalist" interpretation.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:41 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Mr. R have you ever written a blog

that addresses the many unconstitutional things the federal govt does?

It'd be an interesting exercise.

I've heard many say that 90% (or more) of what the fed gov does is uncontst.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 12:49 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Its amazing isn't it jevica?

The complete lack of faith in carrying out oaths that many Democrats show.

You reminded me of an print interview w/Bush II's education secretary I read in "Imprimis"--a newsletter put out by an excellent conservative college (they refuse federal funding of any kind) named Hillsdale.http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

In it she was asked why the doe's budget was increasing under GW when Republicans promised to axe the agency years ago. She said something to the effect of "Yeah, it may be unconstitutional, but it is what it is."

Incredible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:17 PM jevica writes:

BrianR & RL

Very good on BOR 4th amendment and privacy. Where would I be without you, I can't remember anything sometimes.

RL; "the constitution/br are mostly irrelevant today" ONLY in the way many legislators and Judges ignore it. "secession was considered a State right." Some did consider it as such, and many others said there was no such right. A good book on this is "Originalism, a quarter-Century of Debate" from the Federalist Society, it has a chapter which includes ". . . unenumerated Constitutional rights."

Yes "Imprimis" and Hillsdale great, that's why I get it, their policy of no government $$$$ puts them in their own league.

Remember the GOP swept in in '94 with a pledge to eliminate government departments and reduce the size of government at which they failed miserably.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:28 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

"KSM, 4 other 9/11 figures to be tried in NYC"

What could go wrong?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:33 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Brought to you by the BHO administration,
"The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Lower Manhattan Reunion Tour"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:39 PM BrianR writes:

RecLib, Jev


Jev, thanks for that.


RecLib: "1. At the time of ratification until many years later secession was considered a State right."


Au contraire! Where'd you get that idea?

The Constitutional Convention was called to address problems with the Articles of Confederation that directly derived from the various states always threatening to withdraw from the nascent United States, essentially holding the Union at constant ransom.

In the resulting Constitution, the mechanism for statehood was clearly defined in detail... and NOWHERE in the entire document is there any mention of an ability or process for any state to secede.

If the Founders wanted the states to have that ability, they certainly would have said how it's done.

It's like the Mafia: once in, never out.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:49 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Exactly right.

My point was those that believed that were those from the areas that did succeed from the union. As Brian points out there was never any mechanism to leave the union once you're in.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 2:58 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Agree to not Mr. R

It took me a while to come to the conclusion, but again, anyone who honestly and dilligently looks at the history (and not just interpret the Const. from a 21st century perspective) will come to the same conclusion.

Really, the 9th and 10th A's are toothless w/o a right to secede. W/O secession what we have is a central govt that determines the extent of its own powers. Not suprising that we've arrived to the current state we're in, w/the mafia interpretation of the document being in force.

I read the update to this article, missed it yesterday.

The whole abortion thing reeks of a Red Herring to me...it takes the spotlight off of the monstrosity of this bill and places it on a mostly trivial issue. If the bill passes w/a guarantee (at least for now) that no funds will be used for abortion, is that really any kind of concession in the larger scheme?

This is one of those political techniques that is often used: constrict the parameters of the debate.

The question, now, is not whether some kind of nationalized hc will or will not be enacted, the focus is shifting to whether or not abortion funding will be allowed under the plan.

The abortion thing can be dropped, now, and reinserted later on--maybe by scotus mandate, since it has already determined abortion is a "right" (so much for only 'essential' rights being protected under the constitution).

Then, both sides can claim victory.
Pro-HC: "We got hc reform passed!"
Anti-HC: "We got abortion funding axed!"







EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 3:13 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

jevica, it wasn't only the South

who believed in the right to secede.

New York and Rhode Island both asserted a right to secede when they ratified--as did Virginia.

Some of the New England States seriously considered seceding over the War Of 1812.

Walter Williams wrote a wonderful little article about this earlier this year:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/25/states-have -historical-right-to-secede/

Here is an older Williams article on same subject:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

Here's a very interesting quote from the 2nd piece:

...after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

I think, as a society, we may have to start looking forward to new solutions rather than looking backwards and continuing what can only be labelled the stunning failure that America's attempt at constitutional/limited/republican/de-centralized govt is.

It makes absolutely no sense, to me, to say [effectively] that the federal govt can violate the const. at will (w/no real consequences), but the States can't.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 5:17 PM Neocon_Slayer writes:

Just got this in an email, jevica

I thought it was kind of odd timing being our current discussion involved a little bit of this kind of talk. Its about a 5 minute clip of Ron Paul talking about Texas Governor Perry's remarks of a little while back.


http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=0080196& From=News
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 6:20 PM BrianR writes:

Really, RecLib?


Well, if there's a right to secede, then there must be a process for doing so, right?

So... what is that process?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 6:32 PM Patrick Addison writes:

Brian R

Thanks for the post. It offers hope with salient points easily understood. If you would, please comment on how a Republican majority will handle this issue if Healthcare is enacted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 9:02 PM jevica writes:

Recovering Liberal

They may have [thought so] but the only ones who did it were the Southern states.

". . . stunning failure that America's attempt at constitutional/limited/republican/de-centralized govt is."

RL because some politicians, judges etc. don't follow the Constitution, is no reason to throw out the government. BTW what "new" solution would you try to institute?

Some seem to believe that the SCOTUS is the only one to pass on the Constitutionality of laws, we have three co-equal branches of government
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 11:39 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

An oldie but goodie, [yah right].

"White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/politics/14immig.html

"The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 12:17 AM BrianR writes:

Patrick, Jev


Hi, Patrick. Thanks for the kind words.

Here's what I think happens if "healthcare" is enacted:

1. Lawsuits will immediately be filed on the grounds that I've outlined in an effort to block it from going into effect.

2. Should the GOP attain a majority in Congress next year, they'll immediately try to repeal it, as it'll be pretty clear they'll have ascended on the issue (in spite of their own incompetence as a party).



Jev, another good thing if this healthcare crap fails is that the libs will be weaker than hell politically. I think it'll pretty much scrap cap-and-tax and any type of amnesty, ESPECIALLY in an election year.

Further, Bat Ears will have shot his wad. Clinton was gelded on this same issue, and was pretty much a do-nothing Pres from that point on.

The Dems will be back to naming post offices and libraries.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 7:46 AM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian

Well, I came within a hairs breadth of having my own island. HaHaHa! We haven't had a nor'easter like this one since the '62 Ash Wednesday storm. I think I like hurricanes better.

Right on schedule, our local blue dog kicked off his '10 reelection bid by running a series of ads about his NO votes on health care and cap and trade. No mention of the fact he has voted for everything else that Pelosi told him to vote for.

As long a Pelosi has 40 votes to play with it's going to be tough to beat these blue dogs in 2010.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 10:24 AM BrianR writes:

Sarge


Need a towel to dry off?



Yeah, sometimes you have to take what you can get, and at least the guy's opposing the worst of the mess on the table.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 1:52 PM jevica writes:

Sgt & Brian

Pelosi does not care about anything but passing health care.

She will let every Blue Dog lose and lose her majority [also] as long as this terrible health care bill passes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 8:07 PM str8_talk writes:

Brian

Shameless plug time ... nothing political.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 11:13 AM BrianR writes:

Jev, Str8


Yeah, Jev, I agree. To her, it's all about HER power, everyone else be damned.


Str8, on my way.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 11:49 AM buck writes:

Here's the "So what?"

The Marxists in the House are betting that not only will their "entitlement" constituents send them back but that the rest of the country will not elect enough conservative replacements to Repeal the bill.

That's the "So What?"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 3:40 PM Neocon_Slayer writes:

BTW...I'm Baaaaaack!!!

How'd you like that RP vid R-Lib and Jevica?

R-Lib, its good to see another person who DOESN'T have their head up their ahss like BrianRetard!

I think moshe and I pretty conclusively proved the BOR was never intended to apply to the States in his BOR thread.

From this follows the FACT that secession was deemed a lawful State Right at the time of the Founding.

However, don't expect the POS BRetard to be swayed by facts.

He's a Big Govt neocon ahole, so of course he wants a communistic nation, instead of a limited constitutional republic.

Don't try to sway the turd, he refuses to see reason.

I DESTROYED him on this topic--THOROUGHLY--on one of VDad's threads. It wasn't a pretty sight seeing this old blowhard lose it...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 4:07 PM BrianR writes:

Ah.

The Cowardly PervBoy's back.

Yaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn.....

Grown a second brain cell yet to keep the other one company?

Grown any balls yet?

You still have my email address. Let me know, if you find a spine.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 5:38 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Glad to see your friend is back, he should get his own place so we can see how many visit.

How is the grandchild? How does she like the RP hat?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 6:48 PM moshe writes:

Fascinating Discussion

...as always.

I came here initially to let everyone know that there's a very persuasive run-down of why there was no need for us to be involved in WWII at my place.

For those interested, stop on by.

http://townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=42d456b1-09 8c-448a-b4fc-1ee248e18f05

_________________________
I find that the conversation has turned to secession.

My take: I'm all for it!

Why is the process for doing so never outlined?

Good question, and I don't know. But consider this: Why is divorce never mentioned when two people get married?

Also, see the Kentucky resolution of 1798.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said in 1798 and 1799 that the only real check on the federal government was the state power to say NO to any law that the state found to be unconstitutional; and the power to, if necessary, leave the union.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 7:31 PM BrianR writes:

Jev, Moshe


Jev, my guess would be zero.


Moshe, your analogy doesn't work. Divorce IS "mentioned", as there's an existing legal process defined for obtaining one.

What would that be for secession?

A state's own "resolution" is meaningless, as it's trumped by the Constitution... which doesn't allow it.

To use your own analogy, that's like a married guy just "declaring" himself single again, without benefit of court proceedings. It doesn't mean much.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 8:35 PM moshe writes:

Help

I quit smoking for 3 1/2 days... and just lit up again.

Has anyone here successfully quit smoking, and if so... how?

Of course, I can't have a smoke without a drink, now can I?

I just might have to go to AA.

I can see it now:

"Hi... I'm Paulbot Moshe... and I'm an alcoholic."

Good Lord!

There's got to be a better way.

Hypnosis?

Electroshock therapy?

A lobotomy?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 8:46 PM moshe writes:

Brian

To use your own analogy, that's like a married guy just "declaring" himself single again, without benefit of court proceedings. It doesn't mean much.
_________________

Good point. I can't argue with you.

Perhaps a better question would be whether secession and the process thereof SHOULD be in the constitution, as opposed to whether or not it already is.(Well, it clearly isn't, is it?)

I argue that it should be, otherwise... does the doctrine of "states' rights" really have any teeth?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 11:07 PM BrianR writes:

Moshe


That's a reasonable debate, as it's based on a philosophical, rather than legal, basis.

Actually, I believe secession should NOT be an option, for the same reasons the Founders had for calling the original constitutional convention.

We've already seen how it won't work, as evidenced by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Any individual state can hold the Union hostage through the threat of secession. The consept of a "country" would be absolutely meaningless.

California would dictate everything to the rest of the country, as you couldn't survive without us.

Is that what you want?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:18 PM buck writes:

Brian R

"..California would dictate everything to the rest of the country, as you couldn't survive without us.."

Where the h-e-double ell do you get that idea? California has absolutely nothing we do not have elsewhere and a lot of fruits, nuts, anarchists and just plain Marxists we could do without.

We might have a bit of a problem without San Diego, Long Beach and Treasure Island...Oh, we could keep TI. It's an island, government controlled and not part of the state. It'd be like Gitmo, in a way.
Or we might consider trading California to Mexico for the Baja Penninsula. Plus a corridor from Yuma. We'd get rid of Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein that way. Along with SFO, The governator, a gigantic welfare sinkhole and way too many blue votes in the electorate college.
Actually we'd be a lot better off if California DID secede.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:49 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

Good day all!

Mr. R, we just see the issue differently.

I am not infallible, nor can I claim to be a constitutional expert. My understanding could be completely wrong and your's correct. Compared to you I'm sure I am a neophyte when it comes to studying the const. I spent a long time on the wrong side of things (my name admits it!), but I am trying to make up for lost time w/an intensive effort to understand liberty more clearly and America's great historical documents better.

I sincerely believe, however, that at the time of the Founding the understanding was that States had a right to secede and that the BR's only applied to the central gov. A specific process for withdrawal from the Union is not laid out in the constitution, you are 100% correct. Niether does there exist, though, a specfic power granting the central gov the power to wage war on the States, nor have I detected anything in the const. which allows one State or a collection of States to hold another State or a collection of other States captive; I also am not aware of any wording which suggests involuntary and irrevocable membership in the Union once joined.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:50 PM Recovering Liberal writes:

continued

Instead of being like the Mafia (once in never out), I see it as voluntarily entered, voluntarily maintained, and voluntarily able to leave.

While many aspects of the const. have legitimate gray areas, the two items in question cannot:

1. Secession is either const. or not
2. The BR either applies to the States or not

If we are seeking an "Originalist" understanding of the documents I believe we must ascertain how the Founding generation would've answered these two questions. At present, my studies have led me to strongly believe they would've said "Yes" to secession being lawful and the BR only applying to the central gov.

I welcome any further insights you may have regarding this issue (I'm still learning), but I don't believe I have further need to clarify my position and will not further clutter your current blog w/them.

Good day to you sir.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:23 PM moshe writes:

Brian

This is in no way meant to be acrimonious, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems that we subscribe to different power hierarchies. What divides us is indeed a very serious and profound philosophical rift.

You:

Union/country
State
individual

Me:

Individual
state
union/country

It's self-evident and incontrovertible to me that my...I don't know, totem pole of power... is more in line with the limited government paradigm the founders intended and envisioned.

(Did I just say "my totem pole of power"? LOL!)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:26 PM buck writes:

Brian R

Since when does the 5th protect anyone from the IRS?

Al Capone's defense was that to file his income and source would incriminate him.

Nope.

Not to the IRS (back then the IRA- they changed the "Agency" to "Service" to build a better image.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:39 PM BrianR writes:

Buck, RecLib, Moshe


Buck, California has the highest economic productivity in the country, highest GDP, large military establishment, large population, is the "country's breadbasket", etc., etc., etc.

Believe me, if Cali threatened to secede from the Union, we'd get anything we wanted.


RecLib: "I believe... that at the time of the Founding the understanding was that States had a right to secede..."

What is that belief based on? Again, if there is such a "right", why did the Founders spell out such an involved process for statehood, and not spell one out for secession?

A state has to jump through hoops to join up, getting the approval of other member states, but can just quit on a unilateral whim?

That doesn't even make any sense.



Moshe, wrong.

Me: the law.

Everything else derives from that. That defines how a society operates. That expresses the values of a society.

It can be good or bad, but it provides the rationale and justification for all that derives as a social structure.

The Constitution is a body of law; as it states within itself, it's "the Supreme Law of the Land".

You put the "individual" first. But an individual unrestrained by any laws is simply a savage, and any such society is anarchy. Just take a look at Somalia to see where that leads.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:39 PM moshe writes:

Recovering Liberal

"I sincerely believe... that the BR's only applied to the central gov."
_____________

I believe you are correct.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, and - admittedly - doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But yeah, I think you're right.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:42 PM BrianR writes:

Buck


Capone's "defense" was absurd. He could have listed all his income as "other sources" and never been charged.

This mandate is completely different, as the IRS will have to ask specifically whether or not you have medical insurance, and if you don't and you want to avoid the penalty, you'll have to commit perjury, the alternative being self-incrimination.

There's a world of difference in the situations.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:45 PM BrianR writes:

I disagree, Moshe


Only the First is limited to the Federal government, as it starts with "Congress shall make no law..."


All the rest of the Bill of Rights is a confirmation of rights universally enjoyed by people as God-given.

Nowhere in the body of any of them is a restriction on the application, such as we see in the First.

Conform your belief with the wording in the Second "... shall not be infringed."

It DOESN'T say "by the Federal government".

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 1:59 PM moshe writes:

Brian

They say Somalia is nice in the summer.

I'm kidding.

You: the law.

Yes, of course. That's what I meant.

I.E., the supremacy of the various agents....as seen through the eyes of the law.

In other words, the individual must have more legal primacy than the state, and the state more than the feds.

If we were to turn this on its head, how would we have anything other than a monarchy, or.... tyranny?


BTW, I am really, really enjoying this discussion, thanks for participating and making this forum available.

This is debate nonpareil we have going here.

(I think I'm Jefferson, and you're Hamilton!)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 2:06 PM moshe writes:

Brian

What you're saying is perfectly logical.

"All the rest of the Bill of Rights is a confirmation of rights universally enjoyed by people as God-given."

I would like to think so. I mean, I should hope so.

And yet, the SCOTUS, for much of the 1800's, disagreed.

As I said, it still doesn't make any sense to me that the BOR WOULDN'T apply to the states.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 3:30 PM BrianR writes:

Well, Moshe


Let me put it another way. I fully agree with the sentiment often repeated by the Founders:

We're a nation of laws, not men.

It's only the law that affords any protection at all to the individual; no man is above the law.

Without the law, you can kiss goodbye to any "rights" you may have, or any security. All you have left is survival of the fittest, and primacy of the strongest.

What do you think protects the "individual"? God? Goodwill from others?

Only the law.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 9:29 PM moshe writes:

Brian

"We're a nation of laws, not men."

On paper, yes. And in an ideal world, I would agree with you that this would be the "happy medium".

Please keep reading.

"It's only the law that affords any protection at all to the individual; no man is above the law."

Excuse me?

This essay itself is testament to the fact that this is not so. Our adorable congress-critters are on the verge of passing a law... that is against the law!!(i.e., unconstitutional.)...!!!!!!!


"Without the law, you can kiss goodbye to any "rights" you may have, or any security. All you have left is survival of the fittest, and primacy of the strongest."

I see. So the only reason you are not a bank-robber, Brian, is because it is illegal. I think you have the causal relationship backwards. Laws derive from rights, not the other way around.

"What do you think protects the "individual"? God? Goodwill from others?"

God.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 9:43 PM moshe writes:

Brian

"What do you think protects the "individual"? God? Goodwill from others?"

Oh... I don't know. How about the individual himself?

If you would rather depend on laws passed on down from the almighty gubment, then I'm sorry to say that you have the mindset of a liberal.

Who was it that said that the law is an "a$$"?

I'll tell you a story.

Some time back, I was visiting friends in Kentucky.

We were in a "dry" county.

We had to drive 30 miles to the next county.... to get some godda** beer!!

Now you go ahead and expound on the virtues of the law, Brian!
___________________

I don't want this to get contentious. Please don't misunderstand. The way I see it, this is a lively - but friendly - debate.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 10:08 PM BrianR writes:

You prove my point


"Oh... I don't know. How about the individual himself?"


As I said: anarchy, and survival of the fittest.

Somalia.

Frankly, this is getting silly. If you think that somehow man is a "noble" creature able to live together peaceably, then you ignore the entire history of the species, and human nature itself.

You believe in Utopia, and that's simply blind faith. I never argue articles of faith.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 10:16 PM moshe writes:

Shameless Plug

New post at my place, which has just surpassed 50,000 hits a minute.

George W - responsible for 9/11??

(It's very short.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 10:33 PM Sheila writes:

Brian...

A nation of laws... given by the Creator who has endowed us with our inalienable rights...

Hey, did you see the Palin interview on Oprah? I had to write a blog about it... stop by and let me know your thoughts...;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 10:23 AM BrianR writes:

Moshe, Sheila


Thanks for the heads ups; on my way.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 5:04 PM moshe writes:

Brian

I have a troll on my site.

His name is Jim.

He's insulting my girlfriend.

This is a very proud moment for me.

It means I must be doing something right.

I have arrived!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 5:16 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Ahh, the right to secession again

I don't know if there is a right to secede, but Jefferson advocated a revolution every generation or so. While he was not at the Con Conv he was influential there.

Do I advocate revolution now, no. But I think we ought to remember the wisdom so that we can act when and if we ever need to.

My thoughts are that the Constitution is great, and should be revered, but when it loses any redeemable value, when it has been tossed aside as something in the way to certain agendas, it is time to do something different.

Does that mean replacing the abusers with those who will respect the document? Maybe. Does it mean creating something new? Maybe.

This will be situational, but I think it is ultimately a mistake to consider ourselves eternally bound to something that means nothing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 10:07 PM Liberty writes:

Maybe I misunderstood

but your post sounds almost conciliatory.

No surrender or endless defeat. Those are your choices.

Here, I hope, is a possible answer:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22648074/Edwin-Vieira-Tea-Parties -Need-Teeth
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 12:25 AM str8_talk writes:

Brian

Left u a post at my site, I should have just written it here. Then all the razzing starts ... :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 12:50 PM Edamon50 writes:

New Post

Come by and check out the new one!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 2:38 PM BrianR writes:

VDad, Liberty, Str8, Ed


VDad, if the Constitutiojn really IS meaningless in the real sense of the word, then the Great Experiment's over, abnd it ended in failure.

Could be....



But along those lines, Liberty, until that IS the case, we still have a system to try to save.

Interesting link, but it seems to me to be over-the-top "let's throw a revolution, boys" hyperbole.



Str8, Ed, be right there.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 5:53 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Brian

I am not sure it would end in failure. A quick look at the documents role in this nations history shows a great amount of success. What failed was not the document, but the creative abuse by politicians.

One of the ingredients all the founders assumed to be necessary for success is virtue. Without virtue, they all said, it would fail. Until the first third of the 20th century, it could be argued that virtue was a much bigger part of politics than it became after the 30's. Its at that point that the nation really took a populist approach in many areas.

With that fundamental shift in thinking and the rise of technology, it because harder to escape the realities of factionalism and voters en mnasse who could more easilly be manipulated. With these developments, politicians, to save power, were forced to cater to certain groups or ideas. They were forced to sacrifice principles to keep power.

And then, keeping power became the goal instead of representing the people with honor. When this occurred, they found the restraints in thh Constitution more of a hindrance than something to be celebrated, leading to Pelosi's remark just recently that a Constitutional question was not a serious question.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 11:15 PM Sheila writes:

Brian/VDaddy...

The Constitution was written for honorable men... virtue is a foreign word to many in power today, to our detriment.

Hopefully we can start changing things back in the right direction in 2010 and 2012, but...

Do you think we will ever have pure adherence to the Constitution in the future? We never seem to hold onto the majority long enough to turn back the tide... it takes time to get things turned around...especially after the left held control for 40 years...



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 8:15 AM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian

I looks like Reid is going to try and force the bill through, possibly as early as tomorrow or over the weekend. A sight unseen passing is going to put a lot of the senators in a bad place.

I already called mine, not that it will do any good since neither of them are up next year.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 11:29 AM BrianR writes:

VDad, Sheila, Sarge


VDad, Sheila, when I wrote "failure", I meant of the Great Experiment.

And if we don't return to some semblance of constitutionality in this countryh, it WILL have failed. Our Constitution will become as laughable as was the one the USSR had. Yes, they did actually have one. It sounded good on paper, and was of course a joke.


Sarge, I don't know how Reid's going to overcome a filibuster.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 11:54 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

Brian

I don't disagree that it will become worthless. I simply say the Constitution itself would not be a complete failure. When politicians honored and followed it, the nation thrived. It has been more recently that it has been stomped on by those in power, twisting it to mean what they want it to mean rather than honoring its intent.

I do believe there is some flexibility built into it, but every object or idea has a limit on what it can withstand. We, I think, are outside of that right now, and if we continue, you're right, it will become as useless as the Soviet's.

But again, I can't say the Constitution is a failure, but rather the failure is in men who cannot avoid the temptations of power. If you look at the Constitution as a way to reign that in, well, even a document is reliant on people. And as an outline for governmenance, the Constitution has come as close as any document I know to getting it right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 1:36 PM BrianR writes:

Well, yeah, VDad


As a philosophical consideration, I'd say I agree with you.

That was what the Founders themselves constantly warned about, as epitomized by Franklin's "if you can keep it" dictum.

I think FDR was probably the biggest Constitution-killer in the country's history, as his blatant and flagrant abuses set the stage for all that followed.

We'll owe the death of this country to him more than any other single individual.

May he rot in Hell.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 20, 2009 7:00 AM Sgt Relic writes:

Brian

It looks like another Saturday night special a la Red Nanny. Do you think Reid would actually risk having a cloture vote fail?

It could be a test run just to see what they have to take out, or, who they have to buy. I see Landrieu cost us a $100 million dollars for her vote.

Lieberman becomes unimportant if Reid can buy Graham, Snowe, or Collins. So many RINOs to choose from. I hope I'm wrong but I think he has the votes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 20, 2009 11:04 AM BrianR writes:

Sarge, I don't think so


He needs both Lieberman and Snowe. Both have said they won't support a "public option".

Hell, even if only Lieberman holds out, that only gives Reid 59. He has to swing over another GOPer somewhere.

THAT I don't see. I wouldn't want to be the only GOPer to vote for it, while at the same time making it possible to pass. Talk about political suicide.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 20, 2009 8:39 PM str8_talk writes:

Brian

Shameless plug New Post at my site.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 20, 2009 11:55 PM Sheila writes:

Brian...

These loons will do whatever it takes to get the votes they need...they want this redistribution scam no matter what...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive