My state is filing a lawsuit!!

[keaggy220]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

[keaggy220]

UPDATE: Ten other states filing lawsuits. The fuse has been lit - let the chaos begin - politics will never be the same...

Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit
Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01am EDT

MIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.

"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322

[jbuck919]

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia being forced to buy health insurance? It seems to me that we have a question of standing here.

[RebLem]

UPDATE: Ten other states filing lawsuits. The fuse has been lit - let the chaos begin - politics will never be the same...

Deleted by poster.

[JackC]

You are people who feel comfort and a sense of superiority and satisfaction when you see someone die because he has no insurance. You are ghouls and deserve no respect.

Get lost creep

[slofstra]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

[keaggy220]

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia being forced to buy health insurance? It seems to me that we have a question of standing here.

We'll see if your simpleton view holds water in court.

[JackC]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

Can't do it that way in the US. The courtd in this country do not give "advisory opinions." That is, they won't say how they would rule, IF an issue gets to them. There has to be a law enacted, followed by a real lawsuit. It's in our Constitution, not that it means that much anymore.

[keaggy220]

You are people who feel comfort and a sense of superiority and satisfaction when you see someone die because he has no insurance. You are ghouls and deserve no respect.

Go **** youself, you *ssh*le.

Well said. This is a new day and conservatives have moved from civil resistance to combative resistance. This is a new civil war. The dems fired the first shot by crushing the will of the people and taking over 1/6 of the economy.

[jbuck919]

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia being forced to buy health insurance? It seems to me that we have a question of standing here.

We'll see if your simpleton view holds water in court.

Don't expect the states to get the job done for you. I suggest you start your own class action suit right now. Maybe Jack will represent you.

[JackC]

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia being forced to buy health insurance? It seems to me that we have a question of standing here.

We'll see if your simpleton view holds water in court.

Don't expect the states to get the job done for you. I suggest you start your own class action suit right now. Maybe Jack will represent you.

I'm sure the ACLU will be happy to file it for you.

[Barry]

You are people who feel comfort and a sense of superiority and satisfaction when you see someone die because he has no insurance. You are ghouls and deserve no respect.

Get lost creep

Your first version was more on the money. We could put together a highlight package of some of the things Rob has said on here that would make ghouls appear reasonable by way of comparison.

[jbuck919]

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia being forced to buy health insurance? It seems to me that we have a question of standing here.

We'll see if your simpleton view holds water in court.

Don't expect the states to get the job done for you. I suggest you start your own class action suit right now. Maybe Jack will represent you.

I'm sure the ACLU will be happy to file it for you.

Huh

[RebLem]

You are people who feel comfort and a sense of superiority and satisfaction when you see someone die because he has no insurance. You are ghouls and deserve no respect.

Get lost creep

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just make me want me to go take a shower.

[JackC]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

You said to me and others that we take "satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance. That is not "sophisticated". That is moronic. Go to h*ll you moron.

[RebLem]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

You said to me and others that we take "satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance. That is not "sophisticated". That is moronic. Go to h*ll you moron.

Delted by poster.

[JackC]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

You said to me and others that we take "satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance. That is not "sophisticated". That is moronic. Go to h*ll you moron.

You fight EVERY effort to prevent it. There must be a reason.

Keep it up *sshole.

[Barry]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

Which are we, Rob? Are we sophisticated and discriminating or are we 95 percent racists? Make up your mind.

[JackC]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

Which are we, Rob? Are we sophisticated and discriminating or are we 95 percent racists? Make up your mind.

Barry, which is worse - saying to someone on the board that they "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance or calling someone an "*sshole." ??
I sure wouldn't want to violate the standards of the BB!

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

[Ralph]

The lawsuits were guaranteed and surprise no constitutional lawyer. Standing is not an issue as the states can assert that the requirement interferes with their general police powers and in some instances there is an issue of preemption of state law which automatically gives such a state standing.

Substantively, the plaintiffs will undoubtedly argue that the insurance requirement does not substantially affect interstate commerce, the standard employed by the Court when a challenged law does not directly regulate commerce (goods, arteries and means).

[Barry]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

You said to me and others that we take "satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance. That is not "sophisticated". That is moronic. Go to h*ll you moron.

You fight EVERY effort to prevent it. There must be a reason.

There is an obvious reason, Rob. We've said what it is over and over. Are you really that ignorant that you'd continue to ignore it and paint the opposition as having no legitimite reason other than the desire to see people suffer?

This isn't a situation where we've got a clear cut just solution and anyone opposing it is being immoral? There is nothing moral about doing short-term good which will in the long-run contribute to a wider bad (the economic deterioration of the country due in large part to entitlements that we can't keep up with).

You can try and paint the opposition as "ghouls" if you like. The only response to that is to do as Jack did and characterize you accurately.

[Barry]

I don't like people delighting in the chaos they are creating, and I don't like people talking down to me as if I were some yahoo who thinks Dale Earnhardt was the Second Coming. This is a sophisticated audience, for the most part, and we don't like people talking to us as if we were a bunch of ingorant backwoods yahoos. I"m proud to be a creep to anyone who thinks that behavior is appropriate among decent folk, much less a group that is, for the most part, as sophisticated and discriminating as this one. Most of the time, keaggy's posts just want me to go take a shower.

Which are we, Rob? Are we sophisticated and discriminating or are we 95 percent racists? Make up your mind.

Barry, which is worse - saying to someone on the board that they "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance or calling someone an "*sshole." ??
I sure wouldn't want to violate the standards of the BB!

As I just pointed out in my last post, Jack, calling someone who depicts the opposition as Rob did an a**hole is not only reasonable, but entirely accurate.

[RebLem]

I apologize for my excesses in this thread. I have deleted the ones I consider inappropriate, after more careful consideraion. I just plain blew my stack.

Its just that John Donne would have been able to explain why everyone must buy insurance four hundred years ago, and there are still people walking around with an ignorant and stupid pride, shouting, at the top of their lungs, EVERY MAN IS AN ISLAND, ENTIRE UNTO HIMSELF.

It is particularly irritating to find people accusing me of economic illiteracy for some of my policy advocacy, and then cynically exploiting the woeful ignorance of the basic principles of insurance on the part of people who object to having to buy it.

[BWV 1080]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

[jbuck919]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

If they had just made it a tax and moved to a single-payer system, this issue could have been avoided. This court fight is what they get for insisting on doing this through private enterprise. Unfortunately, I don't think we need Ralph to point out that a tax and a requirement to buy something are not the same thing.

[Corlyss_D]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

There are at least two reasons that doesn't happen here in Federal Courts, although it can in state courts sitting on state constitutional questions.

1)Our Constitution, Article 3 says in part, "Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." SCOTUS has defined cases as legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. I think it was a Marshall decision in the early 1800s. There is no right of action, and thus no case in controversy, until the law is enacted. Bad things can happen to a bill after it gets out of Congress and before the president signs it, so until it is enacted, there's no harm.

2) A favorite dodge of our courageous law-makers is to pass crowd-pleasing laws they know are clearly unconstitutional so they can blame the courts when the laws are overturned.

[Corlyss_D]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

Hardly. It's old age insurance. It has a disability component, but that is not the sum and substance of SS. Secondly, it's a tax the proceeds of which are theoretically held in trust for your old age. The right to tax is one of the Article 1 enumerated powers. In fact, it's the first power in Section 8.

[keaggy220]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

Hardly. It's old age insurance. It has a disability component, but that is not the sum and substance of SS. Secondly, it's a tax the proceeds of which are theoretically held in trust for your old age. The right to tax is one of the Article 1 enumerated powers. In fact, it's the first power in Section 8.

Wouldn't it be great if the Supreme Court used this opportunity to get rid of the health care takeover and Social Security? I can dream can't I...?

[RebLem]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

There are at least two reasons that doesn't happen here in Federal Courts, although it can in state courts sitting on state constitutional questions.

1)Our Constitution, Article 3 says in part, "Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." SCOTUS has defined cases as legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. I think it was a Marshall decision in the early 1800s. There is no right of action, and thus no case in controversy, until the law is enacted. Bad things can happen to a bill after it gets out of Congress and before the president signs it, so until it is enacted, there's no harm.

2) A favorite dodge of our courageous law-makers is to pass crowd-pleasing laws they know are clearly unconstitutional so they can blame the courts when the laws are overturned.

I entirely agree with Corlyss on this one, but would just like to add that the reason behind Article 3, Section 2 is that a court must not prejudge cases. You never know what objection someone may have to a law until they in fact make the objection. Then it is the court's responsibility, free of any previous commitment to a stated view of the law, to be the judge.

And yes, #2 is right, too. For Democrats, its clearly unconstitutional campaign finance laws. For the Republicants, its laws against flag burning and for school prayer.

[Corlyss_D]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

If they had just made it a tax and moved to a single-payer system, this issue could have been avoided. This court fight is what they get for insisting on doing this through private enterprise.

Don't suppose you're impressed in the least that something like 60% opposed this f'd-up monstrosity, which in part explains why there is no single payer system, for the time being. If Massachusetts is any indication, eventually insurance companies will be forced out of business and then we taxpayer will get to pick up the slack. Just out of curiosity, how do you plan to pay off the $350,000, liability that you owe now?

Unfortunately, I don't think we need Ralph to point out that a tax and a requirement to buy something are not the same thing.

That appears to be the theory of the case. Personally I thought the states should have raised more legal hell with the first unfunded mandates, like medicare. I don't understand the theory under which a federal law can create an entitlemlent and then compel the states to pay for it. What happened to "our federalism?" If the feds want to create a service, they should pay for it. It's poetic irony it has ended up having to do so to bail out states. Much of the "stimulus" money went to save states who are on the verge of fiscal collapse in part because of medicare. Not exactly "instant karma," but close in geologic time that characterizes much social legislation. Ending unfunded mandates was one of the terms in the Gingrich Contract with America, and while he was running the House, they were as good as their word.

[Corlyss_D]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

Hardly. It's old age insurance. It has a disability component, but that is not the sum and substance of SS. Secondly, it's a tax the proceeds of which are theoretically held in trust for your old age. The right to tax is one of the Article 1 enumerated powers. In fact, it's the first power in Section 8.

Wouldn't it be great if the Supreme Court used this opportunity to get rid of the health care takeover and Social Security? I can dream can't I...?

Won't happen, Keaggy. Since 1937 court-packing incident, which was stopped by massive public outcry against it, SCOTUS has shown powerful little inclination to strike down entire laws authored by Congress, and especially not when the laws are only incidental to the case before them. Instead, they coach Congress how to craft a law that will pass muster.

[Corlyss_D]

just like to add that the reason behind Article 3, Section 2 is that a court must not prejudge cases. You never know what objection someone may have to a law until they in fact make the objection. Then it is the court's responsibility, free of any previous commitment to a stated view of the law, to be the judge.

Good point, Rob. I forgot that reason.

For Democrats, its clearly unconstitutional campaign finance laws.

And the odd gun prohibition, like the ban on packing within X distance of a school.

[DavidRoss]

You are people who feel comfort and a sense of superiority and satisfaction when you see someone die because he has no insurance. You are ghouls and deserve no respect.

Get lost creep

I don't understand why you and others continue paying attention to the hateful bigotry of folks like RebLem and Saul. Surely they've proven by now that they have nothing of substance to add to any discussion and aren't capable of rational discourse or even basic human decency toward people who differ from themselves...? You just can't expect them to be other than they are.

[SaulChanukah]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

Good for Virginia! and other States!

Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit

MIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.


"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.

"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens." (Reporting by Michael Connor, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

[Corlyss_D]

I don't understand why you and others continue paying attention to the hateful bigotry of folks like RebLem . . .

I know you feel strongly about this David, and 99% of the time I don't mince words either, but it pains me to see the b word used with Rob. He's the only one here man enough to declare himself an unabashed and unbowed Soldier of the Left, while the rest of the lib cadre here tries to make us think they are just plain fair-minded, impartial, and independent-thinking souls who just coincidentally never have voted for a Republican for national office in their entire lives and just coincidentally happen to think that libs have all the answers and only the answers while Republicans and conservatives have none. I don't begrudge him an occasional rhetorical excess. I will call him on it, but as a partisan myself, I don't begrudge him. Besides, he apologized for it and deleted it. Who else around here does that? Damn few I'll tell ya!

[Barry]

I don't understand why you and others continue paying attention to the hateful bigotry of folks like RebLem . . .

I know you feel strongly about this David, and 99% of the time I don't mince words either, but it pains me to see the b word used with Rob. He's the only one here man enough to declare himself an unabashed and unbowed Soldier of the Left, while the rest of the lib cadre here tries to make us think they are just plain fair-minded, impartial, and independent-thinking souls who just coincidentally never have voted for a Republican for national office in their entire lives and just coincidentally happen to think that libs have all the answers and only the answers while Republicans and conservatives have none. I don't begrudge him an occasional rhetorical excess. I will call him on it, but as a partisan myself, I don't begrudge him. Besides, he apologized for it and deleted it. Who else around here does that? Damn few I'll tell ya!

We can't agree on everything, I suppose. He goes more than a little over the top. He's one of the more hateful people I've run across on a message board. And I know he thinks he's being righteous when he does so. That's part of the problem with hard left wingers like him.

I also think that people who throw the racism charge out as often and with as wide of a blanket as Rob does do a lot of damage to the atmosphere in this country.

[RebLem]

Social Security is mandatory disability insurance. If the VA wins in court, does that mean I don't have to pay my payroll taxes?

Hardly. It's old age insurance. It has a disability component, but that is not the sum and substance of SS. Secondly, it's a tax the proceeds of which are theoretically held in trust for your old age. The right to tax is one of the Article 1 enumerated powers. In fact, it's the first power in Section 8.

Wouldn't it be great if the Supreme Court used this opportunity to get rid of the health care takeover and Social Security? I can dream can't I...?

Won't happen, Keaggy. Since 1937 court-packing incident, which was stopped by massive public outcry against it, SCOTUS has shown powerful little inclination to strike down entire laws authored by Congress, and especially not when the laws are only incidental to the case before them. Instead, they coach Congress how to craft a law that will pass muster.

Alf Landon, who died, BTW, in 1987 about 6 weeks after his 100th birthday, demonstrating that losing the presidency is good for your health, campaigned against social security and won a grand total of 8 electoral votes--those of Maine and Vermont. He even lost his own state of Kansas. The SCOTUS, despite FDR's overreaching attempt to pack it, was not very popular and they wisely did not wish to buck such an overwhelming public sentiment.

[RebLem]

I don't understand why you and others continue paying attention to the hateful bigotry of folks like RebLem . . .

I know you feel strongly about this David, and 99% of the time I don't mince words either, but it pains me to see the b word used with Rob. He's the only one here man enough to declare himself an unabashed and unbowed Soldier of the Left, while the rest of the lib cadre here tries to make us think they are just plain fair-minded, impartial, and independent-thinking souls who just coincidentally never have voted for a Republican for national office in their entire lives and just coincidentally happen to think that libs have all the answers and only the answers while Republicans and conservatives have none. I don't begrudge him an occasional rhetorical excess. I will call him on it, but as a partisan myself, I don't begrudge him. Besides, he apologized for it and deleted it. Who else around here does that? Damn few I'll tell ya!

LOL. I am not a Soldier of the Left. And I voted for Goldwater in 1964, and still defend that vote. At the time, I hear some of my professors spouting the doctrine of presidential primacy, and I was as opposed to it then when it was intended to advantage Democrats as I was when the Cheney Administration pushed it. Since, I have twice voted for someone other than the DEM nominee--in 1980 for John Anderson, in 2000 for Ralph Nader.

There are even a few issues on which I agree with the RW. I am against the Help America Vote Act, having been a registrar when I was a public aid caseworker. I could never get any information from trainers as to whether or not parolees were eligible to vote. I knew that convicts were not, and people who had completed their sentences completely had their civil rights restored. But whether parolees were allowed to vote or not I did not know, and neither did any of the people sent to train us on the proper procedures. The law stated that we needed indentification and proof of citizenship, but we were told to register people even if they had no documentation, and to enroll parollees, the operative principle being, "When in doubt, register." And this was all, I must stress, under the administration of a Republican governor. Our local administration was very lax about turning the registrations in and tended to sandbag them. The assistant local office administrator refused to let me take hundreds of accumulated registrations down to the county building on the last day for registering because "its a busy day, and everyone is needed here." Quality control at all levels was absolutely non-existent. And that's in a state government office.

I also agree with RWers on how the census should be conducted--its an enumeration, and sampling ought not be allowed. While some poor people will not be counted, the poor population in this country is so mobile that many will also be counted twice, despite efforts to prevent that. I think it probably all comes out in the wash.

And I think Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas, too. I didn't at first, and I thought the gopers attempts to portray her even being allowed to speak as a terrible thing were inappropriate, as was all that "high-tech lynching" stuff. But I thought Sen. Orrin Hatch presented a very convincing alternative theory as to how Anita Hill came up with these allegations. Why is a mystery, still, but then I was raised Catholic, and if there's anything about Catholics you should understand, its that we're comfortable with the idea of mysteries.

[jbuck919]

Since, I have twice voted for someone other than the DEM nominee--in 1980 for John Anderson, in 2000 for Ralph Nader.

Oh, well, in that case.....

[RebLem]

Personally I thought the states should have raised more legal hell with the first unfunded mandates, like medicare. I don't understand the theory under which a federal law can create an entitlemlent and then compel the states to pay for it. What happened to "our federalism?" If the feds want to create a service, they should pay for it. It's poetic irony it has ended up having to do so to bail out states. Much of the "stimulus" money went to save states who are on the verge of fiscal collapse in part because of medicare. Not exactly "instant karma," but close in geologic time that characterizes much social legislation. Ending unfunded mandates was one of the terms in the Gingrich Contract with America, and while he was running the House, they were as good as their word.

Medicare is not an unfunded mandate. Medicaid, to some extent, is. And here it is useful to look at the history of these two programs.

Medicare was first proposed by John Kennedy in his 1960 presidential campaign. Some conservatives objected that it was too radical because it gave benefits to seniors whether they needed it or not, and thought any aid program ought to be means-tested. One of them was what we today would call a Blue Dog Democrat (although that term was not current at the time), Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He was the one who proposed the medicaid program, with its means testing and unfunded mandates on the states. So, this unfunded mandate idea was a conservative, not a liberal, idea, at least in the case of medicaid.

When LBJ succeeded to the presidency, he saw that there was no essential conflict between the two proposals. There was some overlap, but basically, they covered different people--medicaid covered all needy people who were "categorically eligible"--that is, aged, blind, disabled, or with dependent minor children. Medicare covered seniors, whether they were needy or not. LBJ said, "Lets pass both programs," and so Congress did.

The idea of the unfunded mandate was a conservative one. The argument in favor of it was that it encouraged efficiency and discouraged WFA, because state administrators with powerful voices could serve as a check on Washington bureaucrats--thus, you had two levels of government, instead of just one, whose function it was to see to proper, efficient, and non-wasteful adminstration--and the motivation at the state level was they had to pay part of the cost. They weren't just spending someone else's money. Everybody thought at the time that that was a good conservative approach to things.

[Teresa B]

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

Hey, don't bring me into this, I was just browsing the thread!

For the record, I have never personally called anyone on this board nasty epithets, and I have not said hate speech never comes from the left, only that it came from the right recently.

Teresa (no H)

[living_stradivarius]

* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

But the IRS on the other hand...

[JackC]

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

Hey, don't bring me into this, I was just browsing the thread!

For the record, I have never personally called anyone on this board nasty epithets, and I have not said hate speech never comes from the left, only that it came from the right recently.

Teresa (no H)

So Reblem's statement that some of the people on this board are "ghouls" who "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance does not qualify in your world as "hate speech" ??

Thanks, but do continue to keep you eyes out for the real hate speech. It's God's work your doing after all.

[Teresa B]

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

Hey, don't bring me into this, I was just browsing the thread!

For the record, I have never personally called anyone on this board nasty epithets, and I have not said hate speech never comes from the left, only that it came from the right recently.

Teresa (no H)

So Reblem's statement that some of the people on this board are "ghouls" who "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance does not qualify in your world as "hate speech" ??

I didn't see Rob's comment, but what does that have to do with what I actually said?

Thanks, but do continue to keep you eyes out for the real hate speech. It's God's work your doing after all.

I'd like to know what qualifies as "real hate speech" if hurling the N-word at an African American civil rights activist does not. As for God's work, I'll leave that to Her.

Teresa

[JackC]

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

Hey, don't bring me into this, I was just browsing the thread!

For the record, I have never personally called anyone on this board nasty epithets, and I have not said hate speech never comes from the left, only that it came from the right recently.

Teresa (no H)

So Reblem's statement that some of the people on this board are "ghouls" who "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance does not qualify in your world as "hate speech" ??

I didn't see Rob's comment, but what does that have to do with what I actually said?

Thanks, but do continue to keep you eyes out for the real hate speech. It's God's work your doing after all.

I'd like to know what qualifies as "real hate speech" if hurling the N-word at an African American civil rights activist does not. As for God's work, I'll leave that to Her.

Teresa

I never denied that some of the protesters engaged in hate speech. The point is that at the extremes there is "hate speech" on both sides of this.

When Dem congressman Grayson says that the Republican health care plan is "die quickly" where was your outrage over hate speech???

When Reblem says some posters here "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no healthcare insurance -- where is your outrage??

You are only concerned about identifying the people in the "tea bagger movement" who are racist because you would like to draw some conclusion that racism and hate is at the heart of the movement and more generally at the heart of the oppositon to Obama and the Dems program. You want to delegitimize the opposition.

If your real concern was "hate speech", you would spend some time identifying it when it comes from the left. But you don't because that isn't your real concern.

[Teresa B]

I know, Theresa is big on "hate speech". Maybe she can let us know.

Oh I forgot, it NEVER comes from the left.

Hey, don't bring me into this, I was just browsing the thread!

For the record, I have never personally called anyone on this board nasty epithets, and I have not said hate speech never comes from the left, only that it came from the right recently.

Teresa (no H)

So Reblem's statement that some of the people on this board are "ghouls" who "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no health insurance does not qualify in your world as "hate speech" ??

I didn't see Rob's comment, but what does that have to do with what I actually said?

Thanks, but do continue to keep you eyes out for the real hate speech. It's God's work your doing after all.

I'd like to know what qualifies as "real hate speech" if hurling the N-word at an African American civil rights activist does not. As for God's work, I'll leave that to Her.

Teresa

I never denied that some of the protesters engaged in hate speech. The point is that at the extremes there is "hate speech" on both sides of this.

Never said there wasn't.

When Dem congressman Grayson says that the Republican health care plan is "die quickly" where was your outrage over hate speech???

I don't think that's hate speech. It may be rude but it refers to a plan and is not in the same league as the stuff I referred to.

When Reblem says some posters here "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no healthcare insurance -- where is your outrage??

I do not agree with his comment--it is uncalled for.

You are only concerned about identifying the people in the "tea bagger movement" who are racist because you would like to draw some conclusion that racism and hate is at the heart of the movement...

Yes.

and more generally at the heart of the oppositon to Obama and the Dems program. You want to delegitimize the opposition.

No. I was referring to the Tea Party.

If your real concern was "hate speech", you would spend some time identifying it when it comes from the left. But you don't because that isn't your real concern.

Not so.

Teresa

[DavidRoss]

I never denied that some of the protesters engaged in hate speech. The point is that at the extremes there is "hate speech" on both sides of this.

When Dem congressman Grayson says that the Republican health care plan is "die quickly" where was your outrage over hate speech???

When Reblem says some posters here "take satisfaction in seeing people die" because they have no healthcare insurance -- where is your outrage??

You are only concerned about identifying the people in the "tea bagger movement" who are racist because you would like to draw some conclusion that racism and hate is at the heart of the movement and more generally at the heart of the oppositon to Obama and the Dems program. You want to delegitimize the opposition.

If your real concern was "hate speech", you would spend some time identifying it when it comes from the left. But you don't because that isn't your real concern.

Thank you, Jack, for addressing the very disturbing self-righteous hypocritical bigotry displayed in an astonishing number of remarks by posters here who identify themselves as "liberals." From the time I first joined this forum five years ago I've been struck by the unrepentant nastiness of several such posters toward anyone whom they cannot easily classify as one of their own. Their constant recourse to hateful slurs and demonizing slogans, rather than engaging in respectful, rational discussion of differences of opinion, is painfully obvious to everyone but themselves.

The most charitable conclusion I can draw from this is that their extreme partisanship so blinds them that they literally cannot see that their own behavior mirrors exactly that of the racists, sexists, homophobes, and others whose bigotry they recognize and disapprove. Surely, I think, if they could step back and gain some perspective they would recognize their own prejudiced hatefulness and be appalled by it, would repent of it and change their ways to be consistent with the noble principles they value...? But, alas, I've yet to see much progress, even to the point of acknowledging the prejudice that Woody Allen's character lampooned so perfectly in that memorable line from Annie Hall (which has been quoted here before):

"I'm a bigot, I know...but a bigot for the Left!"

[slofstra]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

Can't do it that way in the US. The courtd in this country do not give "advisory opinions." That is, they won't say how they would rule, IF an issue gets to them. There has to be a law enacted, followed by a real lawsuit. It's in our Constitution, not that it means that much anymore.

Found this on our Supreme Court, and we are quite different then.

The Supreme Court does have a special kind of "reference" jurisdiction, original in character, given by s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act. The Governor-in-Council may refer to the Court, for its opinion, important questions of law or fact concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation, or the powers of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures or their respective governments or any other important question of law or fact concerning any matter. Where the government of any province has any special interest in any question put in reference, the Attorney General of the province shall be notified in order that he or she may be heard.

Constitutional questions may also be raised in regular appeals involving individual litigants or governments or governmental agencies. In such cases the federal and provincial governments are notified of the constitutional question and may intervene to argue it.

(from: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/sys/index-eng.asp)

I don't understand substantially why a court could not sort out who has jurisdiction over Health issues. In Canada, federal-provincial division of powers was enshrined in the BNA Act, and I believe preserved in the Constitution. It seems pretty ridiculous for the US government to spend all this effort on creating a bill and then find out they didn't have the responsibility to do so.

[JackC]

What I find interesting here is that constitutional jurisdiction was not sorted out before the vote. The course of events here in Canada sees such questions put to the Supreme Court before a vote is even taken.

Can't do it that way in the US. The courtd in this country do not give "advisory opinions." That is, they won't say how they would rule, IF an issue gets to them. There has to be a law enacted, followed by a real lawsuit. It's in our Constitution, not that it means that much anymore.

Found this on our Supreme Court, and we are quite different then.

The Supreme Court does have a special kind of "reference" jurisdiction, original in character, given by s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act. The Governor-in-Council may refer to the Court, for its opinion, important questions of law or fact concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation, or the powers of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures or their respective governments or any other important question of law or fact concerning any matter. Where the government of any province has any special interest in any question put in reference, the Attorney General of the province shall be notified in order that he or she may be heard.

Constitutional questions may also be raised in regular appeals involving individual litigants or governments or governmental agencies. In such cases the federal and provincial governments are notified of the constitutional question and may intervene to argue it.

(from: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/sys/index-eng.asp)

I don't understand substantially why a court could not sort out who has jurisdiction over Health issues. In Canada, federal-provincial division of powers was enshrined in the BNA Act, and I believe preserved in the Constitution. It seems pretty ridiculous for the US government to spend all this effort on creating a bill and then find out they didn't have the responsibility to do so.

Without getting into how it works in Canada, suffice it to say that it is different in the US.

"Responsiblity" is not the right word. Clearly Congress and the President have the "responsibility" to make the laws. If some one feels that a particular law violates the Constitution, they may file a lawsuit and the Courts will then rule.

It may seem ridiculous to you, but that is how our Constitution requires that it be done. We have managed to get by, somewhat successfully, for a couple hundred years with it.

[Corlyss_D]

Clearly Congress and the President have the "responsibility" to make the laws.

What bugs the hell out of me is that every legislator and excutive takes the oath of office, which includes a version of "will support and defend the Constitution..." Yet they routinely pass stuff they know is unconstitutional on the grounds that "well, we don't know that it's unconstitutional until the court says it's unconstitutional, so let's do it!" Personally, I think that attitude is childish. I used to have to lecture subcommittee chairs and their bosses way above my pay-grade who didn't want them wasting any time on subcommittee assignments, "Look, you can't do nothing or send us a truckload of options without picking one because you think the DAR Council will 'do whatever it wants to, anyway.' You are the professionals and the area specialists; we asked you for your considered advice, so consider it and advise us! You have to make a decision and back it up in your reports. Don't punt the research to us generalists." Leaving anything to the courts is a risky business, so don't tempt fate.