Several prosecutors probing the "Nebraska Compromise"

[IndyColtsFan]

I go with 2 and 4 do I get the door prize?

Surprised it took you this long to fess up. No surprise that you would use that logic but turn around and blast Republicans if they did the same thing. Believe me, if the situations were reversed, Republicans had control of Congress, and one of their members got exemptions for their state AND two large insurance companies in their state, you lefties would be screaming and bitching up a storm.

 

[Thump553]

News flash-prosecutors have no more power than Joe Average Citizen to determine whether something is constitutional. The state's Attorney General is the public official who pursues claims of unconstitutionality.

Another news flash: In most states prosecutors, and in nearly all states, Attorney Generals, are elected offices. It does not surprise me in the least that a Texas elected official is going to bluster and try to make political hay on this issue.

The real travesty here is that a 40% minority can paralyze Congress and require this kind of horsetrading backroom deals. Congress needs to reform its procedures-which is not a matter of Constitutional requirements.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

News flash-prosecutors have no more power than Joe Average Citizen to determine whether something is constitutional. The state's Attorney General is the public official who pursues claims of unconstitutionality.

Wow, thanks for that clarification. None of us knew that.

Now, please CAREFULLY reread the article and get back to us. I've bolded a hint for you above.

Another news flash: In most states prosecutors, and in nearly all states, Attorney Generals, are elected offices. It does not surprise me in the least that a Texas elected official is going to bluster and try to make political hay on this issue.

Someone should be making "political hay" of this issue.

The real travesty here is that a 40% minority can paralyze Congress and require this kind of horsetrading backroom deals. Congress needs to reform its procedures-which is not a matter of Constitutional requirements.

No, the real travesty is that those on the left talked a big game with a lot of bravado after the election about how they were going to pass anything they wanted due to their supermajority. Of course that didn't happen, so Plan B is to blame the Republicans for everything that ails the party. The lack of unity on the Democrat's side is the real problem. Maybe the loony left in the party should have worked a little harder with the moderate side of the party and come up with a better plan which would be palatable to them all?

Of course if Republicans had the majority and Democrats were using procedural tactics to stall, I'm sure that would be OK with you.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Of course if Republicans had the majority and Democrats were using procedural tactics to stall, I'm sure that would be OK with you.

Conservative dissent is obstructionism; liberal dissent is patriotism!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The real travesty here is that a 40% minority can show how willing the other 60% of Congress is to get a bill through which is the antithesis of what it claimed it wanted, because it looks bad for the party (which is more important than anything, if it's the Democratic Party that is) to come away with nothing. Congress needs to reform itself so the Democrats always win no matter what, which is not a matter of Constitutional requirements.

Congrats! You've managed to at least equal the moral depravity of the Neocons. You dont like the rules that you would so obviously embrace if it suited you purposes, you don't care if what you embrace is wrong. You don't care if what if put through needs to be redone, you want to win and winning takes precedence over the national good. People of your mindset made Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, arresting citizens and holding them prisoner possible because the ends justify the means, even if the ends are wrong.

Ok, but please please never complain about the principles of Republicans again. After all the neocons are your brethren in principle.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's not an equal protection issue but an apportionment one. ....imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... heard of that?

That is a more plausible theory. However, as I understand it, Medicaid is regulated by the federal government, but participation in it is voluntary for each state. So the federal government can mandate an expansion of Medicaid, including requiring that participating states pick up part of the tab, but states have the choice to opt out of Medicaid entirely. Accordingly, I doubt the Medicaid payment burden would be considered an impost or excise, since a tax, by definition, is mandatory. There are likely other reasons why this would not be considered a tax, but this is one obvious reason.

- wolf

 

[dullard]

What constitutional right is there that guarantees health care? That is not in the constitution.

The modern idea of health care didn't exist in the times of the constitution writing. But neither did the airplanes in the air force. That is the beauty of the constitution, it still can be used to incorporate modern day ideas. I'll post three relevant passages. Of course, the following passages are debatable and some people will likely deny or even acknowledge some interpretations.

1) Preamble to the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

2) United States Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

3) 14th amendment, section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It can be very easy to see health issues fitting in with those documents. Rather than get into long unending debates about their specific definitions, I'll simply ask you two questions. In your view, is government health care at odds with promoting the general welfare or at odds with our right to life? In your view, is someone with cancer working as a cashier at Walmart to be treated unequally from someone with the same cancer working as a cashier at Whole Foods?

 

[Specop 007]

Chicago politics. The dems are filled with people right now that are masters of bribery and threats to get what they want.

 

[Genx87]

The modern idea of health care didn't exist in the times of the constitution writing. But neither did the airplanes in the air force. That is the beauty of the constitution, it still can be used to incorporate modern day ideas. I'll post two relevant passages. Of course, the following passages are debatable and some people will likely deny or even acknowledge some interpretations.

Preamble to the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

United States Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It can be very easy to see health issues fitting in with those documents. Rather than get into long unending debates about their specific definitions, I'll simply ask you a question. In your view, is government health care at odds with promoting the general welfare or at odds with our right to life?

Of course you understand the difference between the preamble and declaration of independence and the articles and bill of rights of the constitution correct?

 

[dullard]

Of course you understand the difference between the preamble and declaration of independence and the articles and bill of rights of the constitution correct?

I added in the relevant 14th amendment. I suppose I could also include aritcle 1, section 8 but that just repeats what I posted:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Let me cut it down to size: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States".

Government health care may potentially be ruled unconstitutional. But that would go against many other court rulings in the area (for example the goverment already pays for 60% of all health care in the US and we here are simply battling over the last 40%). The term "General Welfare" would have to be ruled by the supreme court to be unapplicable to health care and the equality clause in the 14th amendment would have to be ruled to mean equal pursuit of life except for health care issues where unequal treatment is ok. Both arguments will be difficult, uphill arguments to make (possible yes, probable no). To simply state that health care is not in the constitution is a blatant jump to (probably false) conclusions. I'm only presenting the groundwork that experts in the field will have to work within.

 

[Sclamoz]

Chicago politics. The dems are filled with people right now that are masters of bribery and threats to get what they want.

Do people really have such short memories?

Former Republican Speaker of the House Tom Delay and the K Street Project for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project

DeLay's involvement with the lobbying industry included a pointed effort on the part of the Republican Party to parlay the Congressional majority into dominance of K Street, the lobbying district of Washington, D.C. DeLay, Senator Rick Santorum, and Grover Norquist launched a campaign in 1995 encouraging lobbying firms to retain Republican officials in top positions. Firms that had Democrats in positions of authority, DeLay suggested, would not be granted the ear of majority party members.

In 1999, DeLay was privately reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee after he pulled an important intellectual property rights bill off of the House floor when the Electronics Industries Alliance hired a former Democratic Congressman, Dave McCurdy.

Firms initially responded to the campaign, but it waned during 2004, when the possibility of Senator John Kerry's winning the presidency gave lobbying firms some incentive to hire Democrats.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is a more plausible theory. However, as I understand it, Medicaid is regulated by the federal government, but participation in it is voluntary for each state. So the federal government can mandate an expansion of Medicaid, including requiring that participating states pick up part of the tab, but states have the choice to opt out of Medicaid entirely. Accordingly, I doubt the Medicaid payment burden would be considered an impost or excise, since a tax, by definition, is mandatory. There are likely other reasons why this would not be considered a tax, but this is one obvious reason.

- wolf

Corrected- Medicaid is sort of optional. The precise details of how care is provided isn't spelled out and the state has the option to provide more. The Federal government does not guarantee funding, although it provides some. The minimum standard tends to rise above funding, creating what is the largest program in most state budgets. Because of this and other ill considered programs in NY, we have to spend less on education (not just higher education) all the time to compensate for the mandates. Funds that were dedicated to education now go to Medicaid, which the Dems won't let anyone touch it. It's the One Sacred Cow.

Medicaid is optional, but there are mandates that states must meet. If they wish to get federal aid, then they have to accept medicaid. Otherwise it's on their own dime entirely. Theoretically states can meet these standards, however in practice it's not practical. It's expensive enough with federal funding.

 

[Genx87]

I added in the relevant 14th amendment. I suppose I could also include aritcle 1, section 8 but that just repeats what I posted:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Let me cut it down to size: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States".

Government health care may potentially be ruled unconstitutional. But that would go against many other court rulings in the area (for example the goverment already pays for 60% of all health care in the US and we here are simply battling over the last 40%). The term "General Welfare" would have to be ruled by the supreme court to be unapplicable to health care and the equality clause in the 14th amendment would have to be ruled to mean equal pursuit of life except for health care issues where unequal treatment is ok. Both arguments will be difficult, uphill arguments to make (possible yes, probable no). To simply state that health care is not in the constitution is a blatant jump to (probably false) conclusions. I'm only presenting the groundwork that experts in the field will have to work within.

The 14th would void this as it is not uniform across the nation. Also forcing people into a health program on the national level falls outside the scope of the federal govts authority. Since Democrats assured us Republican love trampling the constitution. Why dont they anty up and propose a healthcare amendment defining that the federal govt has the authority to regulate this industry as it see's fit?

 

[dullard]

The 14th would void this as it is not uniform across the nation. Also forcing people into a health program on the national level falls outside the scope of the federal govts authority. Since Democrats assured us Republican love trampling the constitution. Why dont they anty up and propose a healthcare amendment defining that the federal govt has the authority to regulate this industry as it see's fit?

Health care in the bill is uniform across the nation, just there is earmarked money going to Nebraksa (the equivalent $5 per year per Nebraskan). I'd love to get rid of all earmarks like that. But so far, no earmarked money that I know of has been declared unconstitutional even though earmarks invariably favors one state over the other 49 states. Until we get a line-item veto, we will continue to get crap like this. I'm against this provision and I'm a Nebraskan who will save $50 in taxes over this bill's 10 year timeframe.

Your words "falls outside the scope of the federal govts authority" is exactly what I was discussing. Prove that health care doesn't fit within the scope of general welfare. You can't. Honestly, I can't prove that it belongs there either because it hasn't been directly ruled on by the supreme court. My argument is that the idea of "health care being general welfare" probably will pass a supreme court test based upon historical ideas and past court rulings on other health care laws.

I'd really love to see the Democrats have some balls and really fix the issues (including regulations). At least this is a start. After a few years of refinements and some lawsuits, hopefully we'll get this into better shape.

If I had everything in my control, the first thing I'd do is ban the rediculous draconian idea of employer sponsored health care (it only came about due to income caps that I bet you and I would agree are bad ideas). It is just plain wrong to have your employer being the person who makes the most important health care decisions for you (not you, not your doctor). Plus, few employers actually have the ability or the desire to fully understand the life-or-death health care decisions they are making. After that, I bet everything else would fall into place. Democrats and Republicans alike would be clamoring for very similar protections if they had to pay for health care themselves.

 

[woolfe9999]

Corrected- Medicaid is sort of optional. The precise details of how care is provided isn't spelled out and the state has the option to provide more. The Federal government does not guarantee funding, although it provides some. The minimum standard tends to rise above funding, creating what is the largest program in most state budgets. Because of this and other ill considered programs in NY, we have to spend less on education (not just higher education) all the time to compensate for the mandates. Funds that were dedicated to education now go to Medicaid, which the Dems won't let anyone touch it. It's the One Sacred Cow.

Medicaid is optional, but there are mandates that states must meet. If they wish to get federal aid, then they have to accept medicaid. Otherwise it's on their own dime entirely. Theoretically states can meet these standards, however in practice it's not practical. It's expensive enough with federal funding.

Yes, this is all correct. My point, however, was that whether to have a Medicaid program or not is optional for each state. Accordingly, the funding obligations that the federal government imposes on states for Medicaid are technically optional and cannot therefore be considered a tax. Hence, I doubt the inequity of the Nebraska deal violates the Constitution's mandates that all federal taxes must apply equally across the country. I hope it turns out that they do but I doubt it.

- wolf

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Conservative dissent is obstructionism; liberal dissent is patriotism!

I think I will put that in my signature. Was that Bober's quote?

 

[bfdd]

What I don't understand is how any Senator or Congressman/woman would vote on this knowing their constituents have to pay for others who get a by.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, this is all correct. My point, however, was that whether to have a Medicaid program or not is optional for each state. Accordingly, the funding obligations that the federal government imposes on states for Medicaid are technically optional and cannot therefore be considered a tax. Hence, I doubt the inequity of the Nebraska deal violates the Constitution's mandates that all federal taxes must apply equally across the country. I hope it turns out that they do but I doubt it.

- wolf

The flaw in your logic (and what is very wrong with how these liberal programs are setup) is that if your state does opt out of it, these is no tax break. Additionally, the federal government can withhold funding to other projects if the state does opt out.

The biggest mistake the states every made was allowing the federal government to grow. Instead of directly taxing their citizens and using the money for what the state sees as necessary, the federal government has raised income tax levels so high that states cannot raise taxes enough.

Nothing is gained by increasing the size of the federal government except other state asserting control of your state.

Then again the liberal/democrat montra is that they know what is best for everyone.

 

[Darwin333]

News flash-prosecutors have no more power than Joe Average Citizen to determine whether something is constitutional. The state's Attorney General is the public official who pursues claims of unconstitutionality.

Another news flash: In most states prosecutors, and in nearly all states, Attorney Generals, are elected offices. It does not surprise me in the least that a Texas elected official is going to bluster and try to make political hay on this issue.

The real travesty here is that a 40% minority can paralyze Congress and require this kind of horsetrading backroom deals. Congress needs to reform its procedures-which is not a matter of Constitutional requirements.

I always laugh when I hear things like this. Just like when the Republicans were telling the Dems to shut the hell up as Bush expanded the power of the Executive branch (just one example).

You guys are way too short sighted. You see, the party you dislike will eventually regain power and when they do those rules you are advocating will now apply to them. Do you really want a Republican admin and a Republican controlled house/senate to be able to shut out the "minority"? Would you have liked the rules you are advocating to have been in place during Bush's first term? No one seems to think that the power they wish for their team will eventually be wielded by the opposing team but it will.

Perhaps you think that, despite history, your team will never lose its power so there is nothing to worry about. If that is the case, can I interest you in a bridge? Real cheap.

 

[Zebo]

That is a more plausible theory. However, as I understand it, Medicaid is regulated by the federal government, but participation in it is voluntary for each state. So the federal government can mandate an expansion of Medicaid, including requiring that participating states pick up part of the tab, but states have the choice to opt out of Medicaid entirely. Accordingly, I doubt the Medicaid payment burden would be considered an impost or excise, since a tax, by definition, is mandatory. There are likely other reasons why this would not be considered a tax, but this is one obvious reason.

- wolf

Wolf, Are they not taking the 1% out or employees and employers checks anymore? I think that will determine constitutionality - if they merely allocate funds/remuneration differently this happens daily on every issue. Ca Fed employees get more to live in Ca than SD.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Health care in the bill is uniform across the nation, just there is earmarked money going to Nebraksa (the equivalent $5 per year per Nebraskan). I'd love to get rid of all earmarks like that. But so far, no earmarked money that I know of has been declared unconstitutional even though earmarks invariably favors one state over the other 49 states. Until we get a line-item veto, we will continue to get crap like this. I'm against this provision and I'm a Nebraskan who will save $50 in taxes over this bill's 10 year timeframe.

Your words "falls outside the scope of the federal govts authority" is exactly what I was discussing. Prove that health care doesn't fit within the scope of general welfare. You can't. Honestly, I can't prove that it belongs there either because it hasn't been directly ruled on by the supreme court. My argument is that the idea of "health care being general welfare" probably will pass a supreme court test based upon historical ideas and past court rulings on other health care laws.

I'd really love to see the Democrats have some balls and really fix the issues (including regulations). At least this is a start. After a few years of refinements and some lawsuits, hopefully we'll get this into better shape.

If I had everything in my control, the first thing I'd do is ban the rediculous draconian idea of employer sponsored health care (it only came about due to income caps that I bet you and I would agree are bad ideas). It is just plain wrong to have your employer being the person who makes the most important health care decisions for you (not you, not your doctor). Plus, few employers actually have the ability or the desire to fully understand the life-or-death health care decisions they are making. After that, I bet everything else would fall into place. Democrats and Republicans alike would be clamoring for very similar protections if they had to pay for health care themselves.

I never post here but this post is so full of fail I had to correct it. Congress has only the powers specificaly granted to it in Section 8 of the Constitution. Even liberal judges do not dispute this. They just interpret these powers much more broadly than strict constructionists. Specifically, the powers in question are the commerce clause and the "nessessary and proper" clause. Please read the Constitution some time, it is important.

 

[dullard]

I never post here but this post is so full of fail I had to correct it. Congress has only the powers specificaly granted to it in Section 8 of the Constitution.

I quoted Section 8 in my post above (post #35). It gives congress power to do all that I said. Would you like to read what I post before commenting?

But you must be right, if congress had the power to spend on health care then we would have federal spending on things like medicare! That would be instantly overturned by judges! Clearly since congress doesn't have that power, that is why we don't have medicare.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I quoted Section 8 in my post above (post #35). It gives congress power to do all that I said. Would you like to read what I post before commenting?

But you must be right, if congress had the power to spend on health care then we would have federal spending on things like medicare! That would be instantly overturned by judges! Clearly since congress doesn't have that power, that is why we don't have medicare.

That is the power to tax, it doesnt say Congress can do whatever it wants as long as it promotes the general welfare. I have never heard anyone even propose that it means this. The most likely case for the healthcare bill being constitutional is the commerce clause.

 

[lothar]

It comes down to the fact that this deal effectively favors the citizens of one state by exempting them from taxation for political purposes. This would be different from federal funding formulas which take average income etc into account. It would be the same as exempting a state from federal income taxes if the leaders play ball on some issue. I dont think that would fly. I agree that it wouldn't invalidate the bill itself but rather any special arrangment.

How is Nebraska's comprimise any different from the pork barrel spending that has passed congress for the past 100+ years?
People from the other 49 states have their tax dollars being spent on the "King of Pork"'s state pet proects.

 

[ebaycj]

Here in Illinois (where Obama began his political career) the state government is so far in debt that medicare/medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals is delayed by up to 2 full years from treatment.

And you can forget about education payments... state government started up a new program some years ago for parents to give money to the government early on, as a down payment towards college tuition with a guaranteed return. Well, our infinitely wise state officials took all the tuition money and invested it all those derivative security thingies. (and a note for the "progressives" of this forum, IL state gov't has Democrats as Governor, Lt. Gov., State House & Senate control) Yeah, what was supposed to be a savings account, Illinois parents now have nothing to send their kids to college with...

Now this expanding rol of medicare/medicaid, as well as the cuts they say they will make with this health care bill, sucks to be old I guess

They were lied to, as "those derivative security thingies", were rated AAA at the time of purchase. Which means that they were supposed to be the safest investment vehicle available. Sounds like a good strategy to me for a long-term "fixed" payout, investing in the safest investment vehicle available.