Why hasn't this so-called conservative court overturned Obamacare already?

[First]

^ Well I didn't expect you to actually agree, you have your own (false) conception of what the Constitution says bam bam, and no one is going to change your mind no matter how much new information you learn on a daily basis.

 

[First]

Okay, shut up, wanna know who got the 3/5 compromise passed? SOUTHERN STATES! Non-slave states didn't want slaves to count for anything in the vote, but southern slave owners thought it was a rip off because they had hundreds of souls that could vote. Slave-owners wanted slaves to count for a whole vote, and as a compromise, the north said "3/5's".

Huh? Who said anything about the North or South having the moral high-ground on the Compromise? I'm well aware it took two to tango kiddo.

 

[Brigandier]

Huh? Who said anything about the North or South having the moral high-ground on the Compromise? I'm well aware it took two to tango kiddo.

I never said anyone had a moral high-ground, but when people say "they were only worth 3/5's" as a way to show how America was racist and hated darkies, well, it's not accurate. America was racist, the south thought they could enslave and get the votes of the blacks, and wanted them to have one whole vote. The north thought since the south didn't treat blacks as humans or give them rights, they shouldn't have any votes. There is no moral high-ground, but the position that blacks "were only worth 3/5's a person" plays into the slave-holders mind, not the slaves.

 

[First]

I never said anyone had a moral high-ground, but when people say "they were only worth 3/5's" as a way to show how America was racist and hated darkies, well, it's not accurate. America was racist, the south thought they could enslave and get the votes of the blacks, and wanted them to have one whole vote. The north thought since the south didn't treat blacks as humans or give them rights, they shouldn't have any votes. There is no moral high-ground, but the position that blacks "were only worth 3/5's a person" plays into the slave-holders mind, not the slaves.

Except it is accurate since the color of their skin absolutely played a role as to whether a person was considered a slave in America or not. If you were black, the liklihood of you being given the same freedoms as a white person were essentially zero. This was due to race, not due to votes. The decision to partition blacks into 3/5ths of a person was due to votes (and taxes), but the whole conversation centered squarely on their race because the conversation would never take place if it were white children and white adults in question. Race was the determining factor, by leaps and bounds.

 

[Rainsford]

Well, there is no UHC that was enacted. What will be questioned is the federal mandate that citizens purchase health insurance from a private entity.

And the constitutional argument against THAT is...what, exactly?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a lawyer, and it's entirely possible that there is a legal argument against "Obamacare". But if so, I believe the folks arguing that it's unconstitutional will stumble upon that argument only by extraordinary luck. Because what I see isn't the well reasoned legal arguments of constitutional scholars, it's people treating the Constitutional as a magic wand they can just wave at policies they don't like.

 

[Brigandier]

Except it is accurate since the color of their skin absolutely played a role as to whether a person was considered a slave in America or not. If you were black, the liklihood of you being given the same freedoms as a white person were essentially zero. This was due to race, not due to votes. The decision to partition blacks into 3/5ths of a person was due to votes (and taxes), but the whole conversation centered squarely on their race because the conversation would never take place if it were white children and white adults in question. Race was the determining factor, by leaps and bounds.

Yes, and we can only say that today. To use that past, and both sides of its losing argument, as indicative of race relations is a red herring.

 

[First]

Yes, and we can only say that today. To use that past, and both sides of its losing argument, as indicative of race relations is a red herring.

What? How is it a "red herring", think you used the wrong word there. The argument centers entirely around the Constitution being a living document or not, malleable to changing eras or not. The fact that it occurred in the past is entirely relevant and not at all a red herring.

 

[Brigandier]

What? How is it a "red herring", think you used the wrong word there. The argument centers entirely around the Constitution being a living document or not, malleable to changing eras or not. The fact that it occurred in the past is entirely relevant and not at all a red herring.

It's a red herring because both sides of the modern argument completely ignore what was going on when the decision was made. The Constitution is only living in that we are, the words on its paper are just words, and pretty simple. I do not think the constitution is "living," the only live part of the constitution is our struggle to try and think and understand the debate that went into the words. That's why I think it is a red herring to use a modern political argument to define any of the things or fore-father's did.

 

[Kanalua]

So much win OP...SO much win...

 

[bamacre]

^ Well I didn't expect you to actually agree

No one with half a brain would agree with you. You shot yourself in the foot with your own words anyway.

You said...

You can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution because, well, it was.

This is just a completely retarded statement.

You shot yourself in the foot here...

Blacks were literally considered 3/5ths of a person specifically because of race/genetics.

Now this statement is correct. It is not that the Constitution allowed slavery of human beings, it is that at the time, blacks were not considered human beings. Obviously one could not own white slaves.

 

[First]

It's a red herring because both sides of the modern argument completely ignore what was going on when the decision was made. The Constitution is only living in that we are, the words on its paper are just words, and pretty simple. I do not think the constitution is "living," the only live part of the constitution is our struggle to try and think and understand the debate that went into the words. That's why I think it is a red herring to use a modern political argument to define any of the things or fore-father's did.

Except we understand quite well the context behind much of how the Constitution was written nor are we completely ignoring anything, at least when it comes to supremes and scholars. So it's not really mysterious, and we can look back at how history actually developed to understand why the Constitution needed to be amended and updated reasonably, but carefully.

 

[First]

No one with half a brain would agree with you. You shot yourself in the foot with your own words anyway.

You said...



This is just a completely retarded statement.

You shot yourself in the foot here...



Now this statement is correct. It is not that the Constitution allowed slavery of human beings, it is that at the time, blacks were not considered human beings. Obviously one could not own white slaves.

Yeah, again, you keep making statements, they're wrong, but you make them. Like I said, no one can really convince you otherwise because, well, you just don't like learning new things or changing your beliefs. It's quite religious of you. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that you don't know what "core" means. Here, I'll help you out:

: a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of experts> <the core of her beliefs> b : the essential meaning : gist <the core of the argument> c : the inmost or most intimate part <honest to the core>
3 : a part (as a thin cylinder of material) removed from the interior of a mass especially to determine composition

I mean just because half of Congress' makeup (the HOR) and the tax laws of the time were based on the notion that blacks were 3/5ths of a person, doesn't mean it was a "core" belief. Just a really, really, really, ridiculously god damn important belief. Yeah, that's it!

rofl.

 

[bamacre]

Yeah, again, you keep making statements, they're wrong, but you make them.

Eh?

Like I said, no one can really convince you otherwise because, well, you just don't like learning new things or changing your beliefs. It's quite religious of you. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that you don't know what "core" means. Here, I'll help you out:

: a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of experts> <the core of her beliefs> b : the essential meaning : gist <the core of the argument> c : the inmost or most intimate part <honest to the core>
3 : a part (as a thin cylinder of material) removed from the interior of a mass especially to determine composition

I mean just because half of Congress' makeup (the HOR) and the tax laws of the time were based on the notion that blacks were 3/5ths of a person, doesn't mean it was a "core" belief. Just a really, really, really, ridiculously god damn important belief. Yeah, that's it!

rofl.

Uh, ok. You see, slick, I read those definitions (and thanks for posting them, btw, because I like learning new words every day ), and when I think about the core beliefs, the general principles behind the writing of the Constitution, I think of things like the ideas of freedom, the idea that men have inalienable rights, separation of government powers, and I just can't get where one "can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution."

We could save a lot of time here if you'd just admit you're a goddamn idiot.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...when I think about the core beliefs, the general principles behind the writing of the Constitution, I think of things like the ideas of freedom, the idea that men have inalienable rights, separation of government powers...

IIRC, "Unalienable Rights" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[bamacre]

IIRC, "Unalienable Rights" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

I knew I shoudn't be posting before I finish my first cup of coffee.

 

[First]

Eh?



Uh, ok. You see, slick, I read those definitions (and thanks for posting them, btw, because I like learning new words every day ), and when I think about the core beliefs, the general principles behind the writing of the Constitution, I think of things like the ideas of freedom, the idea that men have inalienable rights, separation of government powers, and I just can't get where one "can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution."

We could save a lot of time here if you'd just admit you're a goddamn idiot.

You aren't saying anything new bamster, it's tired already. You can ignore that apportioning the HOR and tax laws in the original Constitution, which determined both revenues and lots of elections, wasn't at the very least an extraordinarily important piece of the Constitution. You don't like the word core I guess, but fact is the Constitution was fundamentally altered to get rid of slavery and institutionalized racism a long time ago, and the fact you believe the Constitution's core beliefs should never be fundamentally altered is, well, just layman BS. You don't really know what they are, don't really care, and don't really want to change your mind. But hey, that's why you vote for Ron Paul!

 

[bamacre]

You aren't saying anything new bamster, it's tired already. You can ignore that apportioning the HOR and tax laws in the original Constitution, which determined both revenues and lots of elections, wasn't at the very least an extraordinarily important piece of the Constitution. You don't like the word core I guess, but fact is the Constitution was fundamentally altered to get rid of slavery and institutionalized racism a long time ago, and the fact you believe the Constitution's core beliefs should never be fundamentally altered is, well, just layman BS. You don't really know what they are, don't really care, and don't really want to change your mind. But hey, that's why you vote for Ron Paul!

What you are arguing here are two things...

1. "slavery was a core belief in the Constitution."

2. Legislation abolishing slavery altered (or contradicted) the core or general ideas behind the Constitution.

You are wrong on both counts. Dead wrong. The fact that the Constitution allowed the enslavement of blacks is a giant leap from what you are suggesting, that "slavery was a core belief in the Constitution," a statement that doesn't even make sense as slavery is not a "belief."

Secondly, abolishing slavery advanced the freedoms and liberties of blacks, and thus, in doing so did not change or alter the core beliefs and principals in which the Constitution was written.

 

[Carmen813]

I don't like the health care bill, but I don't think that SCOTUS will strike much of it. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the commerce clause can be used to justify federal control over anything that could potentially affect interstate commerce, the classic case being wheat grown for one's own use (and therefore replacing wheat one would presumably buy on the open market.) Given that many if not most health care interactions involve multiple states (insurance, drugs, hospital or clinic chains, etc.) I can't imagine that this would be viewed as exceeding Congress' authority. I would love to see the commerce clause brought back into a proper originalist role, but I think the health care bill on balance would meet that more strict constitutional test. Almost any 2,000 page bill is going to have some parts struck down, but I don't think the core of the bill is necessarily unconstitutional even if personally I dislike it.

As far as Roberts being a conservative justice, the conservative view on the judiciary is that judges should exercise restraint and impartially interpret the law as it stands, NOT as they personally think it should be. For Roberts to move on this because as a conservative he thinks it is exceeding Congress' rightful authority would be to adopt the liberal/progressive view of the judiciary as a tool for societal justice and would thus be a rejection of the views he himself professes. We need less judicial activism, not judicial activism in a different particular direction.

And yet Conservative judges have stricken down far more laws than Liberal ones...yet liberals are the ones labeled activists. Just another one of the things I will never understand.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution because, well, it was. Blacks were literally considered 3/5ths of a person specifically because of race/genetics. Doesn't get much more "core" than that, especially when considering they were the backbone of 40% of the union economy from the outset.

Even beyond the whole 3/5th thing, the Constitution explicitly did not allow the banning of slave importation until 1808 at the earliest.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Isn't a constitution supposed to be a document that is so abstract that everything in it is a core belief? I think it is.

 

[hal2kilo]

And yet Conservative judges have stricken down far more laws than Liberal ones...yet liberals are the ones labeled activists. Just another one of the things I will never understand.

Someone is paying attention.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Is it because John Roberts believes that its Constitutional due to his broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause? Is that it?

There have been several lawsuits and I'm fed up with a court calling itself conservative not hearing it yet.

I wish the fuck they'd brink Rehnquist back to life or something, because John Roberts doesn't cut it for someone who calls themself conservative.

why does this administration still allow you to post on these forums.....

 

[drebo]

I don't like the health care bill, but I don't think that SCOTUS will strike much of it. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the commerce clause can be used to justify federal control over anything that could potentially affect interstate commerce, the classic case being wheat grown for one's own use (and therefore replacing wheat one would presumably buy on the open market.) Given that many if not most health care interactions involve multiple states (insurance, drugs, hospital or clinic chains, etc.) I can't imagine that this would be viewed as exceeding Congress' authority. I would love to see the commerce clause brought back into a proper originalist role, but I think the health care bill on balance would meet that more strict constitutional test. Almost any 2,000 page bill is going to have some parts struck down, but I don't think the core of the bill is necessarily unconstitutional even if personally I dislike it.

As far as Roberts being a conservative justice, the conservative view on the judiciary is that judges should exercise restraint and impartially interpret the law as it stands, NOT as they personally think it should be. For Roberts to move on this because as a conservative he thinks it is exceeding Congress' rightful authority would be to adopt the liberal/progressive view of the judiciary as a tool for societal justice and would thus be a rejection of the views he himself professes. We need less judicial activism, not judicial activism in a different particular direction.

My problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold.

First, current insurance providers don't provide interstate health insurance, so they're not included in the commerce clause.

Second, the government seems to be circumventing this by mandating that everyone be forced to buy health insurance, and that health insurance companies be forced to sell it to everyone.

The first is certainly unconstitutional without the second. The case has to be whether or not the US Gov't has the authority to mandate everyone to buy a private good. At that point, it becomes a case for the commerce clause.

All this is beside the point, though, because there is no "healthcare reform" of any kind in the bill. It doesn't fix any of the problems, and it doesn't provide health care to any more people that currently receive it.

 

[bamacre]

why does this administration still allow you to post on these forums.....

For the same reason we allow you to.

 

[First]

What you are arguing here are two things...

1. "slavery was a core belief in the Constitution."

2. Legislation abolishing slavery altered (or contradicted) the core or general ideas behind the Constitution.

You are wrong on both counts. Dead wrong. The fact that the Constitution allowed the enslavement of blacks is a giant leap from what you are suggesting, that "slavery was a core belief in the Constitution," a statement that doesn't even make sense as slavery is not a "belief."

Explain what the giant leap is between allowing a person to be considered less than human (3/5ths), and slavery being a core belief of the Constitution? This is like arguing that taxation isn't a core principle because the gov't merely allows it. It quite literally makes no sense.

And yes, slavery can most certainly be considered a belief, claiming otherwise just makes you seem weirdly out of touch with proper diction. If you believe that certain people, like Africian Americans, are by their very nature inferior to white Americans and shouldn't free, and should be forced into and born into bondage as a direct result, then saving you believe in slavery is perfectly proper word choice.

Secondly, abolishing slavery advanced the freedoms and liberties of blacks, and thus, in doing so did not change or alter the core beliefs and principals in which the Constitution was written.

Considering the bedrock of the Constitution dates back to no taxation without representation, and that blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person for both taxation and representation complications between the North and South, it's obvious to those who have studied our founding that slavery was absolutely at the very least a bedrock principle, even if often purposefully buried. That founding principle can't be swept under the rug since both taxation and representation are founding principles.