I will say up front, clearly, for all to hear: violence, and threats of violence, in response to to the health insurance bill, are wrong. Categorically wrong. And anyone making such a threat, or committing such a violent act, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That said, however, such threats and even people acting on such threats is not merely unsurprising, but absolutely inevitable. And far from being, as Nancy Pelosi said, against "the American way," they are firmly rooted in American politics from the very beginning of our nation (and I'm not just referring to the Revolution, either).
This is very simple.
Every person has the right to self-defense, to protect their rights from being violated by others. However, if every person acted out in self-defense against every encroachment of rights, we'd have chaos. So if a neighbor poisons your dogs, you don't shoot him or trash his yard. You go to the authorities: the police, the courts, and so on.
That is how we maintain an orderly society.
In this case, however, it's the government that is violating our rights. We entrust a significant portion of our right to self-defense to government, and they abuse that by stealing from us.
Of course, the right thing to do in this case is to work through the political system to fix the problem, to protect our rights from government encroachment. But for very legitimate and rational reasons, many people believe that's no longer a reasonable option. Year after year, more of our rights are taken from us, and with few exceptions, one those rights are gone, they don't come back.
So when the organizations you entrust the defense of your rights to is the organization violating your rights, and you believe you have no recourse left, you're going to consider reasserting your right to self-defense of your rights.
This is inevitable. Not that everyone will do it, of course, but in a nation of 300 million people, some will. Even if people don't think of it in those terms precisely, it's how the reasoning basically goes. It's wrong most of the time -- including in the case of the health insurance debate -- but it will happen, and pretending that it's some anomaly or outside of the American tradition is stupid. It would be nice if it were outside the American tradition, but that's just not reality.
Indeed, such violent reactions as we've seen are so completely and obviously inevitable that I assume the Democrats, long ago, knew the reactions would happen (how couldn't they?) and planned to take political advantage all along. If they are surprised by the reaction, they are, quite frankly, completely incompetent.
And for those who whine about this sort of thing happening more from the right than the left, I don't know if it's true. I've certainly seen many death threats toward Republicans in my days, and even in the last year we've seen many violent acts at health care town halls from Democratic supporters.
But I will say that because of how the parties break down philosophically, with the left being much more likely to take away the rights and property of other people, a violent response is therefore more likely in that direction. But we see the same thing from the left, too: the man in Bellingham who last year threatened violence because he saw his rights as a gay man being violated; radical blacks in the 60s fighting for their actual civil rights as human beings; and so on.
Their violent acts and threats were not justified either. But that some people will respond violently when government, the institution sworn to defend people's rights, are the ones violating their rights. It makes them feel helpless, which drastically increases the liklihood that they will lash out violently in reaction.
It's the way the world works and we shouldn't act surprised, and, when appropriate -- such as now -- we should point out that if government didn't steal from us, it wouldn't be getting that sort of reaction in the first place.
Of course, some on the left are going to say I am condoning violence, even though I'm clearly not. Just as broad government theft of rights inevitably results in violence, so too does speaking candidly about it inevitably result in lies.
It's the way the world works.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 25, 2010 11:21 PM | Email ThisThen the left does things like sends violent thugs to political demonstrations, engages in voter fraud, and does things like today, firing a gun into a political office... and this very real violence is given a pass because it's viewed as counterbalancing the (as far as I can tell) imaginary violence exhibited by the right.
Makes no sense to me.
God help these idiots if the right actually does become violent. We are much better armed, as a general rule. (Which may have something to do with why we do not resort to violence as readily).
Posted by: jvon on March 25, 2010 11:59 PMThere are some who will Cling to the idea of using only non-violent means to defend yourself. Well, that would be Great if success would be able to be achieved by such means. Violence, of course, is the last resort.
There is an old saying: When, Government is afraid of the People, you have Freedom. When, the People are afraid of the Government, you have Tyranny. Be prepared to defend your Right to Bare Arms or be prepared to give up your Freedom.
These same swine apparently fear a lady and her family...
Just remember Guns don't kill presidents, Democrats do
Politically motivated presidential assassinations come from only one side of the political spectrum
"I'm not exaggerating," Obama told the crowd, "leaders of the Republican party, they called the passage of this bill 'Armageddon!' Armageddon. End of freedom as we know it. So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, or some cracks opening up in the Earth. Turned out it was a nice day."
Those attending the rally burst into laughter and applause.
"Birds were chirping, folks were strolling down the mall," the President continued, "people still had their doctors."
There will be violence whether we want it or not.
Liberals, please tell me how much debt is too much before it all comes to an end.
Thank you so very much.
Yes, maybe that is part of the problem. The government can take my rights away by Force Of Arms.
The political process takes time to work through, and as an individual I have a nearly zero impact on it. So being told that I must adhere to the political process when the government can quickly strip me of rights that I thought were guaranteed and impose said right-stripping with threat of force, I'm not sure waiting to 'vote on it' is the most attractive solution.
Posted by: erich on March 26, 2010 08:06 AMWe are American's, addicted to comfort, even our poorest still enjoy many of the comforts like big screen TVs, movies, plentiful food, housing, transportation, etc. We are generally weak-minded and as a result make for perfect "Sheeple". Most of us don't even understand what is going on in the country because we don't have the time to get involved. We are generally under payed in our jobs, requiring both parents to work full-time just to get by. Then when you feel as though you have "made it", the government comes in and taxes you severely. Then they require permits and licenses and special fees for anything extra you want to do. Then when you die, hoping to pass something to your children, they once again step in and take half.
It is really quite depressing. And, there is very little we can do. Protesting, while annoying to our representatives, as we saw did absolutely nothing to change the way they voted. The extreme polls, some 70-80% against the health care bill - still absolutely no effect on their vote.
Posted by: Countryside on March 26, 2010 08:36 AM
Provide the necessary disclaimer, then give your gang-sign to the brown-shirts.
Just like Mike Troxel going on a teabag rant, posting Perriello's brothers address, and then saying "just drop by"
*wink wink*
"I will say up front, clearly, for all to hear: violence, and threats of violence, in response to to the health insurance bill, are wrong.
That said, however..."
*wink wink*
*nod nod*
*finger across the nose*
What's to stop them?
Posted by: Gary on March 26, 2010 09:03 AMIt doesn't justify your lies, though.
It's telling that when you quote me saying "that said, however," you don't actually point to anything I said that you object to, that implies or even remotely hints at condoning or encouraging violence. Your lies are especially transparent.
"Mr. President, for the first time, we as a nation are recognizing that people have a right to not be destroyed by sickness."
The idiocy of our leaders is beyond comprehension.
Posted by: Gary on March 26, 2010 10:02 AMRwanda radio never told anyone to kill Tutsis - just Glenn Beckesian rhetoric and giving addresses
Posted by: mercifurious on March 26, 2010 10:28 AMWhat did I say that encouraged anyone to "drop by," or anything similar?
Rwanda radio never told anyone to kill Tutsis - just Glenn Beckesian rhetoric and giving addresses
Whose addresses did I give out?
You're a liar, mercifurious.
I don't tolerate violence, whether it be environmentalists, or right-wing militia's (like idiot in Alabama calling for breaking of windows). Both are forms of domestic terrorism.
Posted by: tc on March 26, 2010 11:31 AMI wouldn't say "never." Certainly it was an answer in the American Revolution.
And if I had lived under the Steel Curtain, I'd like to think I would have readily used violence if it suited the means of restoring liberty and destroying oppression.
In this case, I agree, it is not the answer.
If the cause is just and right, the non-violent protests will win out.
History proves that's not true.
Do you feel your cause is greater than King's or Ghandi's?
You appear to be implying I am advocating violence in this case, which is a lie.
What evidence do you have that violence works?
The many examples from history, our Revolution being the primary case in point.
But my case is not that violence works. Did you read what I wrote? My point is that violence is inevitable.
What is the end goal of the violence? Is it not overthrow of the government?
It depends on what you mean. Not always necessarily to literally remove the people in power or install a new form of government, but to, at least, transform the government from one of oppression, yes, I'd think so.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1
Guess he lied. Why didn't the AP tell us this last week?
AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, 3M... all being hurt by this.
But hey, at least we'll have more IRS jobs!
Idiots...
Then, I'm sure tc would agree that MSNBC's Ed Schultz is a domestic terrorist for what he said just a month ago.
"You're damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football", Schultz said in remarks recorded by the media blog Radio Equalizer. "We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him."
Grayson was on Dave Ross yesterday and was a complete whack job. These people are angry when they win and livid when they lose. What a life that must be.
I agree there are loons on the right, but I also recognize that the loons on the left have become mainstreamed by the media and the ratio is about 5:1 if not more of nutjobs having a forum to spew their bile. There is no moral equivelency here. Look at how Nickolodeon is lionizing Michelle Obama one year in for taking up the cause of childhood obesity, while ignoring 8 years of Laura Bush's cause of literacy. Take one mistake by Dan Quayle (who received a mis-spelled word on a 3x5 card by an "educator") and he's declared a dunce and ridiculed ad nauseum, while the current VP is on video drunk singing"the villages"singing"the villages" and makes verbal gaffes every time he speaks publicly. Even the President has made more gaffes than Dan Quayle ever has and yet, despite being Harvard eduacated, he's declared brilliant even though he doesn't appear to be capable of spelling Syracuse correctly on his NCAA bracket this year.
There is a double standard here, tc. You and I both know it.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2010 12:33 PMAbsolutely false, as the Civil Rights movement demonstrated. African-Americans had been forcibly denied their rights in the 1870s, and for the next eight decades had suffered brutally violent repression by the governments they supported with their taxes. (And if their governments couldn't get away with killing them, that violence could be outsourced to America's own home-grown terrorist outfit, the Klan.) They responded, as every American should know, with a campaign of non-violent action, which completely restored their rights. (Over the whining of the racist regimes of the South, the U.S. federal government actually did the job of protecting citizens' rights, by prosecuting the KJan for the terror they perpetrated.)
Claiming that American violence is "inevitable" is not merely a filthy insult to Dr. King and his fellow activists; it excuses terrorism.
Posted by: tensor on March 28, 2010 03:44 PMShrug. You have no counterevidence. Indeed, you only help prove it's true.
[African-Americans] responded ... with a campaign of non-violent action
False.
Do you really need me to point out the The Black Panthers? And what about Malcolm X and "by any means necessary," which was an explicit attack against nonviolence (and later, of course, Malcolm X was gunned down by other violence-preaching black people)?
So ... um, yeah, bringing up the Civil Rights movement actually helps prove my point.
Maybe you're arguing that the movement AS A WHOLE was nonviolent, but that is not an argument against anything I said, so at best you've got a big ugly straw man there.
Claiming that American violence is "inevitable" is not merely a filthy insult to Dr. King and his fellow activists
Shrug. I don't care if facts insult anyone. Certainly, MLK Jr. was well aware of Malcom X's preaching of violence, and said that Malcolm did a "disservice" to the movement. I agree with that absolutely, but it doesn't mean I, or King, would pretend that Malcom X didn't exist.
And if Malcom X didn't exist, someone would have ... perhaps the people who killed him, for example. It's inevitable.
it excuses terrorism.
You're a liar. Saying something is inevitable is nothing remotely similar to saying it's acceptable or excusable. I say theft and murder and rape are inevitable in society, but that doesn't mean I excuse them.
tensor, that was weak even for you.
*Yawn* You made the claim that violence was inevitable; I countered with a major example of Americans defending their rights without using violence. Your claim thus sits disproven, and you have utterly failed to support it.
So ... um, yeah, bringing up the Civil Rights movement actually helps prove my point.
The Black Panthers didn't end Jim Crow; the Civil Rights movement did. If you have a single example of Malcolm X actually planning or executing a violent act, I'm sure a large number of historians would want to see your evidence. He merely stated his disagreement with Dr. King; he never actually did anything about it. Please stop confusing words and deeds.
Dr. King was also gunned down; Ghandi died violently. Your point?
Maybe you're arguing that the movement AS A WHOLE was nonviolent,...
Yes, I stated that clearly, so kudos for demonstrating, however briefly, a high-school level ability at reading comprehension.
It's inevitable.
Name a single example of violence perpetrated by the Civil Rights Movement. Name a single example of violence by Malcolm X. Just because some people choose to harm their fellow citizens does not make it inevitable; they could, had they the requisite character, chosen non-violent means. But that's the rub, isn't it? You know the teabaggers well enough to know they'll never act on Dr. King's level. You're apologizing, in advance, for the violence done by persons of low character.
Posted by: tensor on March 28, 2010 05:35 PMCorrect.
I countered with a major example of Americans defending their rights without using violence
Which doesn't answer what I said at all. You're lying by implying I ever said anything about MOVEMENTS being inevitably violent.
I only said that the perceived theft of rights of many people, by government, inevitably results in threats and violence. If threats and violence results from the theft or withholding of civil rights -- whoever perpetrates them, whatever groups or movements or associations they belong to -- then it is consistent with my claim. Period, end of story.
I said nothing about any associations any people would form, and thus, whether violence is perpertrated by "the Civil Rights movement" or the Black Panthers is irrelevant to my point.
Your claim thus sits disproven
Your straw man thus sits exposed.
The Black Panthers didn't end Jim Crow
Nothing in my premise had anything to do with the EFFECTS of threats or violence, so this is also completely irrelevant, even if I did say something about movements, which I didn't.
If you have a single example of Malcolm X actually planning or executing a violent act ...
I never implied he did. He preached against nonviolence, though, and many of his followers engaged in violence. I was not giving Malcolm X -- whom I actually admire, somewhat -- as an example of violence, but, as I explicitly stated, an example of someone who preached against nonviolence, and whose followers engaged in violence.
Yes, I stated that clearly
Shrug. I was trying to interpret your words as relating to what I actually wrote, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now you "clearly state" that you were arguing a straw man all along. So there we have it.
Just because some people choose to harm their fellow citizens does not make it inevitable
I never said it did. I just said it was inevitable; I didn't identify a particular cause.
You know the [expletive deleted] well enough to know they'll never act on Dr. King's level. You're apologizing, in advance, for the violence done by persons of low character.
And here's your biggest lie of all: you're accusing Tea Party activists of being generally violent.
Except, of course, you have no evidence of that.
Give examples, or retract your slander.
I say theft and murder and rape are inevitable in society...
Actually, they are not. Every violent act committed tomorrow has roots in decisions made today. Persons of sufficient character do not commit rape and murder. I find it most informative that you have decided to conflate rape and murder with right-wing political dissent.
P.S. "Teabaggers" is not an expletive; it's what they originally chose to call themselves.
Posted by: tensor on March 28, 2010 07:04 PMShrug. I am still waiting for you to admit all your lies, including that you were completely misrepresenting my point.
If you do that, then I'll consider any requests you have for me.
Actually, they are not.
Yes, they are.
I find it most informative that you have decided to conflate rape and murder with right-wing political dissent.
You're a liar.
"[expletive]" is not an expletive
False.
it's what they originally chose to call themselves.
You're a liar.
That's because we expected you to know the destructions of the Murragh federal building, the World Trade Center, and the murder of Dr. Tiller were all performed by right-wing terrorists. We understand that defacing pictures of President Obama to resemble Hitler is inherently racist; we expected you to understand this simple fact as well. It looks like we overestimated you, yet again.
it's [teabagger] what they originally chose to call themselves.
You're a liar.
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was �Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.� A protester was spotted with a sign saying, �Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.� So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=
Go get 'em, pudge! Just give me enough time to cook up a metric ton of popcorn first!
Posted by: tensor on March 28, 2010 07:37 PMThis is my country, like it or leave it.
Posted by: Marlin on March 29, 2010 09:31 PMMost obviously to anyone who's following the debate, my right to NOT BUY a service I don't want. Also my right to carry insurance that covers less than what the government says I should have. Also my right to carry insurance that covers MORE than what the government says I should have. Also my right to not provide health insurance to employees. And on, and on, it goes.
You refer to the government as if it was some walking talking thing going around taking your rights away. What are you talking about????
If you a. knew even a little about this bill and b. knew even a little about rights, you wouldn't need to be told.
This is my country, like it or leave it.
You're boring.
I do know about things unrelated to the health care debate. But as they are unrelated, they -- by definition -- have no relevance here. I could point out the fact that leftists killed more people in China and the USSR than anywhere else, at any other time, in history: but to use that as evidence that Obama would kill millions like Mao and Stalin did is idiotic, just like you're being idiotic now.
We understand that defacing pictures of President Obama to resemble Hitler is inherently racist
First, everyone roundly condemned the leftist activists who did that. Every time I've seen Obama-as-Hitler it's come from the Larouchers. They are leftist Democrats. Perhaps it's come from the right, but I've never seen it.
Second, no, that is not at all inherently racist. That's asinine. Indeed, you have it backward: leftists did the exact same thing to Bush all the time; to give Obama a pass on the same treatment just because Obama is black is what's actually inherently racist.
Please stop being racist, tensor.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=
You're a liar. Using this to back up your claim is one of a long string of lies you keep telling.
Again, you said it is "what they originally chose to call themselves," but the NR link provides only evidence that the verb form was used, not that they called themselves that. (You do know the difference between nouns and verbs, right?)
First of all: did you read? I was asked what RIGHTS were being denied ME. So yes, obviously, that would be the "vantage point" I would reply from, since that's the question that was asked.
Second: it is simply unacceptable to violate my fundamental liberties for the sake of "the system." If we must do that, then we don't have a system worth maintaining. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the reason governments are instituted among men is to secure individual liberties. Period. End of story. There is no other reason government exists. There's other things government may do, but the only reason it exists is to secure individual liberty.
It increases the costs on everyone else, which is why the mandate is there (i.e., to lower the costs for everyone).
This argument can be used to take away EVERY right. It's a completely invalid argument.
When someone who is healthy (assuming that someone who is sick would not consider such an option) opts to not buy insurance or to buy lesser insurance, it defeats one of the main purposes of insurance, which is spreading out the risk pool.
So? If I don't believe in insurance, or want to not participate for any reason, or get some lesser insurance, that is my right. Period. End of story. And you have no right to interfere in my decision.
By not spreading out the pool, it forces higher rates on those who do buy insurance.
That's THEIR problem. Not mine. They choose to participate in a system of insurance, and they cannot force that choice on me just because it makes their lives easier to do so.
If you could propose a way to increase the coverage pools and not require a mandate ...
First, again, there is NO POSSIBLE justification for the mandate, whether it does what you want or not.
Second, you're looking at it backward. You are falsely equating health insurance coverage with health care. We do not need more people covered by health insurance, we need health care to be less expensive and more broadly available. Of course, if we do this, insurance will be cheaper and more people will be able to get it. Yet one more reason why this new law is so stupid: it doesn't go after the real problem -- cost and availability of care -- in any serious way whatsoever.
The problem is it can't be done.
False. I just gave a very clear and obvious way it could be done.
This is why this approach has been proposed (originally by Republicans) from the early 1990's.
Why do you say it was proposed by Republicans? I wonder if you're trying to make a point. It was sponsored by one of the most leftwing Republican Senators in history, and didn't even get a majority of Republican support in the Senate ... and many of the Republicans who did support it, like Hatch, did so primarily just to help push AN alternative: one they knew would never become law.
So if you're trying to make the point that this is an idea that Republicans generally supported, you're wrong.
Again, come up with a better solution and people will listen.
Shrug. Even if you're right that this is the only way to solve the problem -- which is obviously false -- it is still unconstitutional. You cannot be allowed to do it.
I know you probably don't agree with that ... which is why I say that many liberals hate the rule of law. You, like Gregoire, DO NOT CARE whether this violates the Constitution. You really don't. Your reply to me was like Gregoire's reply to McKenna: instead of trying to justify the legality of the mandate, you say how much you think it is needed. The ONLY valid response to the claim of unconstitutionality is to assert -- with arguments -- that it is actually constitutional.
And you didn't do that.
Right now, however, your solution may minimize your individual costs by shifting system costs onto others.
False. No one does that, that I've ever seen or even heard of, except for people who can't pay for coverage.
My question back to you is what right do you have to force me to pay more because you want to take a free ride in society (assuming you chose not to buy insurance or buy insurance by cherry picking coverage)?
People who choose to have no, or less than the "minimum standard," coverage do so because they pay out of pocket for whatever else they need. This is not shifting any costs to anyone. You're feeding us a damned lie.
What's the TRUTH of the matter, what Democrats usually don't admit except when they forget the cameras are on, is that this is about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. It's not about the uninsured person shifting costs to everyone else, it's about the uninsured person being forced to pay more than he needs to, in order for other people to use HIS money.
And don't give me this crap about mandates being required to get rid of preexisting condition exclusions, either, because that is easily solved with a waiver. "I hereby solemnly swear that I, by my choice to not carry insurance, will not receive, or seek to receive, any government money for health care."
It'd be a little more complex than that: for example, I have a right to emergency room services as a taxpayer, and so on. But care that is above and beyond what taxes normally would go to pay for in this new regime, those things that insurance pays for ... I'd sign a document saying I would not get that treatment unless I paid for it out of pocket. Simple.
The only two reasons not to do that is because a. you want to control my life, and b. you want to take my money.
Correct.
Let me rephrase so you can teach me: what constitutional right is being taken away from you?
I did.
Can you tell me or not?
I did.
I don't think those "rights" you gave me are in the constitution
You're wrong. If nothing else, there's -- obviously -- the Tenth Amendment. Only a fool can believe that the power "to regulate commerce" includes the right to tell people to buy, or to not buy, certain products or services. Government can regulate the process of buying those products or services, but not force or prevent such commerce.
And even if you're foolish enough to think that preventing someone from buying a product or service can be "regulating commerce," only a DAMNED fool can think FORCING someone to buy a product or service is.
And of course, there's also the fact that the Ninth Amendment explicitly recognizes that we DO have other rights not enumerated, and certainly, one of those is the right to liberty, and another to the pursuit of happiness. Forcing someone to do something against their will violates both (and by implication, their right to life, as well).
you idiot.
Yawn.
This statement gets at a base assumption you are making which is false. You are assuming this is the reason, but there is not evidence that this is the primary, or predominant reason. It could be a reason for a select few individuals, but a select few will not drive the costs.
The "mandate" part of the law is written to cover people who can afford insurance but choose to not buy. The "mandate" part has not application for those who can't afford insurance due their income level. These folks are covered under the expansion of Medicaid part of the bill. The "mandate" part also doesn't cover directly the issue of people buying less than adequate coverage. This area is covered by government regulation of the insurance, which is within its constitutional role of regulating commerce. Remember, I had previously stated that insurance, itself, was determined to fall under the commerce clause back in 1944. Unless, you want to argue that insurance regulation is outside of the commerce clause (i.e., regulation regarding types of insurance offerings, minimal coverages, etc.), then the group of people who buy less than adequate coverage is moot to the argument.
Therefore, we are left with the group of people who can afford to buy insurance, but choose not to. The issue is whether their non-buying of insurance effects the system (i.e., imposes costs on others by their decision). This is what will have to be fought out in the AG's court case. Since, this group in general is younger, typically in good health, and likely single or childless, they don't put much burden on the system (unless they do stupid dangerous activities that get them hurt and thus end up in the emergency room). They do however put a burden on the risk pools used by insurance companies to price insurance. I don't see any argument on your part on this part. Do you believe that not having them in the risk pool keeps costs for the rest the same? Or, do you agree that they cost for the rest of the pool will go up? The principle of insurance is shared costs (minimizing risk by the mixture in the pool). If the pool is riskier, then the insurance rate will go up. Since all use the health care system in one way or another, even those who minimally use it and pay out of their pocket, they make up the "system" whether they want to contribute or not. The "system" is not staffed and equipped to only handle those who pay. The healthcare system is set up to handle everyone. This is where you are making the wrong assumption in your argument. You seem to assume the system is only for those who pay to use it.
Posted by: tc on March 30, 2010 01:03 PMFalse.
The "mandate" part of the law is written to cover people who can afford insurance but choose to not buy.
Yes. This does not disagree with what I said.
The "mandate" part has not application for those who can't afford insurance due their income level.
Not true. Everyone is mandated to be covered, except for some religious, not-present, and incarcerated exceptions. People who cannmot afford coverage are exempted from the penalties, but still mandated to be covered.
The "mandate" part also doesn't cover directly the issue of people buying less than adequate coverage.
They are precisely the same issue. The mandate is TO HAVE "adequate coverage." If you have no coverage, or "less than adequate" coverage, it's the same thing: you are being forced to buy something you don't want. There's no rational distinction between those two things, and the law itself doesn't even pretend there is: section 5000A(a) of the bill says, "An applicable individual shall for each 24 month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."
This area is covered by government regulation of the insurance, which is within its constitutional role of regulating commerce.
That's the case the liberals make, yes. And it's flatly wrong, as I've described many times, including in the comment just before yours.
And speaking of religious exceptions, I'll point out one more reason -- among a great many -- that it's clearly unconstitutional: they allow people to opt out for religious reasons, but government has no right to define which religions can opt in or out, because that itself is a "law respecting an establishment of religion" (not to mention the fact that many people have religious beliefs not reflected by any religious organizations they may affiliate with).
Now all that said, the constitutional arguments for "no" insurance, versus "not enough" insurance, are slightly different, even though it's the same issue: it's hard to claim a religious exception for, say, preventative care, if you have catastrophic care already. It's also hard to claim your right to association is being violated, since you already are associated with the insurance company.
But most of the arguments stand exactly the same: government cannot force you into commerce you don't want to be in.
Hell, government cannot force you to do ANYTHING you don't want to do. Including participation in a military draft. They can regulate what you do when you choose to do something, but can't force you into doing something. They cannot force you to go to school, to join the Army, to buy insurance, to classify your race, or to stand on your head. They have no authority whatsoever to do any of these things. THEY serve US. WE do not serve THEM. And before you say "but the government is the people," well, yes, that's the point: the PEOPLE cannot force me to stand on my head, so surely the government can't do it either.
No authority was ever granted for this, and any damned fascists who want to try can go to hell.
Remember, I had previously stated that insurance, itself, was determined to fall under the commerce clause back in 1944.
Straw man. NO ONE is saying that "insurance" is outside of commerce that may be regulated. What we are saying is that FORCING people to BUY insurance is outside of the allowed regulation of insurance.
"the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is inherent in all congressional action--the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated"
That means the constitution represents a constraint on the democratic process, because the constitution represents a set of rules which may not be overturned through ordinary democratic means. The supreme court regularly points out that the primary limitation on unwise exercise of congressional commerce Clause must be found at the ballot box.
Posted by: Marlin on March 30, 2010 06:34 PMYeah, that is literally one of the most simplistic -- and obviously incorrect -- interpretations of the Constitution people tend to bring up regularly. It's obviously wrong because the interpretation, literally, strips the 10th Amendment of any meaning whatsoever.
Going by your interpretation, the 10th Amendment just means "the federal government can do anything it wants to, except where the Constitution specifically prohibits it." That stands the stated, and plain, understanding of the 10th Amendment on its head, as it was written expressly to LIMIT the federal government.
I reassert that you don't understand these things.
the constitution represents a constraint on the democratic process, because the constitution represents a set of rules which may not be overturned through ordinary democratic means
Including the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't say it can do.
The supreme court regularly points out that the primary limitation on unwise exercise of congressional commerce Clause must be found at the ballot box.
Yes, but not the only one. We also have this thing called the Constitution.
Wow.
LOL.
You're boing.
Yawn.
I know what you clearly said, and it clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of not only the history and origins of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, but of how to simply read the law in general.
The way you read the law is simply how no legal scholar does it: you read it in such a way that the law nullifies itself! That's obviously irrational.
you refuse to include the full, actual text of the 10th Amendment
Not remotely. That's what YOU are doing. You ignore the fact that the first part of Amendment X says that it is limiting what the federal government can do. You pretend, instead, that "the people" means "the federal government," and that it can do anything.
But that cannot be what "the people" means. Rather, it means "the people" outside of government. Individuals and small groups. That is what it meant from the beginning. James Madison -- who wrote the Tenth Amendment -- wrote about this at length, many times.
Indeed, your interpretation denies Federalist 10, which Madison also wrote, which tells us that the whole point of our system of republican government stands IN CONTRAST TO pure democracy, where a majority of people can vote to get whatever they want. Rather, the government the people elect is limited in what it can do, restricted in the scope of its powers.
You literally have no clue what you are talking about. You will not find a SINGLE Constitutional scholar who agrees with you on this.
If you knew anything you would realize the supreme court has NEVER upheld a suit alleging that the federal government has violated the 10th.
False. In fact, it's happened many times in recent years. One of the most notorious in recent years was The Brady Act.
So yeah, um, YOU are the one who doesn't know anything here.
Also, frankly, whenever the Court rules that something is not justified by the "Commerce Clause" -- which is not uncommon -- that is another way of saying it is upholding the Tenth Amendment. This gets a little bit complicated because -- in Madison's own view -- the Tenth Amendment was unnecessary. Madison felt it simply reiterated the fact that the Constitution was one of enumerated powers to begin with, and that no amendment stating explicitly that government could not go beyond its enumerated powers was necessary. This is reflected in Federalist 45 -- written before Amendment X -- in which he wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
So you can rule that the power of the federal government is restricted without making explicit reference to the Tenth Amendment, but it still falls under the same constitutional and jurisprudential philosophy. To take another gun law, a federal "gun-free" zone was ruled unconstitutional in 1995 because there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to create such a thing. The case never explicitly mentioned the Tenth Amendment, but it recognized the clear and obvious truth of the Tenth Amendment: that the federal government is limited in its power by what the Constitution says it can do, not merely by what it doesn't say it cannot do.
Indeed, the very fact that the individual mandate in the health insurance law is justified, in the text of the law, by explicit reference to the Commerce Clause tells us that even the liberal Democrats who wrote the bill believe that they have to justify a power used by the federal government, rather than just say "the people voted for us, so therefore we can do it." Similarly, every time the Court rules in favor of a government power under the Commerce Clause, it is implicitly agreeing that the government is limited to exercising authority delegated to it by the Constitution ... which is what the Tenth Amendment says.
Further, just because the Court does not uphold something, doesn't mean it's not obviously true. It is, for example, obviously true that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the States, because of the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. There is no question based on the history and text of the law that this is true. However, thanks to the ridiculous Slaughterhouse precedent, that provision of the Constitution is essentially ignored by the Court today.
Since you obviously don't know anything about this, being so new to the Constitution as you are, you can read the recent oral arguments in the "Chicago" gun case, to be decided this summer, for an overview. Note that several of the justices did not pan the "privileges and immunities" clause because they disagreed with the Constitutional meaning presented by the people who brought the case, but because of more technical reasons having to do with precedent and so on.
The obvious point is, since you probably missed it, is that there's a difference between what the Constitution says, and how the Court rules. They are not, and never have been, one and the same. Dred Scott, Plessy, Slaughterhouse, the list of cases where the Court got it wrong, and that precedent lived on for many years, is long and distinguished.
So if you want to talk about what the Tenth Amendment clearly means, that's one thing. If you want to argue how the Supreme Court will rule, that's something very different. I have made no prediction about how the Court will rule on this, though if I had to guess, I'd certainly guess on the side of liberty, and against the side of massive social and economic federal control.
I hope you come away from this with two thoughts new to you. The first is that you don't know what you are talking about. That is very important, because otherwise, you will never learn. The second is that the federal government is limited to what the Constitution says it can do, not to who "the people" elect, and that the Courts and even liberal Democrats consistently recognize this fact by attempting to justify new federal powers against the Commerce Clause and so on, rather than just saying "the people elected us."
ANYWAY, would you agree that insurance is interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated, constitutionally by the federal government?
Posted by: Marlin on March 31, 2010 06:09 PMOh right, that's all you wanted. So when you asked me to explain myself and then said "This is my country, like it or leave it," you were just being nice. Please: you started being confrontational, right off the bat.
I think you're maybe overlooking some things.
Such as?
Just focus on the subject instead of trying to posture yourself as a constitutional scholar.
Shrug. You asserted incorrect things. I corrected you. Don't blame me for your ignorance. And I'm not going to posture as someone who doesn't understand the constitution just because I don't fit your definition of a constitutional scholar.
This isn't some competition ...
No, it's not. It's a discussion. You asserted incorrect things in that discussion. I corrected you.
I'm actually getting a lot out of this and I admit I have learned one or two things.
Then why berate me for explaining things to you? Maybe instead you could just thank me ... ?
ANYWAY, would you agree that insurance is interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated, constitutionally by the federal government?
They can only REGULATE the INTERSTATE parts of the commerce. That obviously does not include forcing people to buy insurance, since forcing people to engage in commerce is far beyond mere regulation of commerce.