Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling

[Skinview]

Seriously? Of course the constitution is reinterpreted. It's a living constitution for a living country. The only constitution that never moves is a dead one.

If the Constitution is reinterpreted, its because SCOTUS thinks it made a mistake (or wants to make a mistake). You can't know where your Constitution stands if it keeps walking around, and words that had meaning one day can be ignored the next. If you can reinterpret the Constitution to do whatever you want, then you might as well throw it out, because it doesn't do anything at that point.

[Yogi Bare]

But without the emphasis on "unreasonable". You could put the whole Constitution in bold text, but that doesn't mean you are aware of the part that is relevent to the issue.

You obviously didn't notice in my post, where I addressed what is "unreasonable".

[sdcal]

If you want to go back to what the Founding Fathers believed and to what the Constitution originally allowed, then you must believe that the "individual mandate" is constitutional. If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

Some of the earliest laws passed by the first few congresses, which included founding fathers in their ranks, proclaimed exactly that. And specifically for healthcare. (I believe Mark pointed this out a while back, but I found a new link which specifically mentions health care).

[Gloria]

If you want to go back to what the Founding Fathers believed and to what the Constitution originally allowed, then you must believe that the "individual mandate" is constitutional. If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

Some of the earliest laws passed by the first few congresses, which included founding fathers in their ranks, proclaimed exactly that. And specifically for healthcare. (I believe Mark pointed this out a while back, but I found a new link which specifically mentions health care).

I remember Mark's post about this. I found it amusing.

I urge anyone to read both laws as written. The 1790 law requiring merchant ships to carry a supply of medicine seems like more like a modern Coast Guard regulation to me. The 1792 law requiring the militia to supply their own arms does only applies to militia not everyone.

If these were such "earth shaking" revelations why has no Obamacare supporter provided an amicus curiae brief about these laws to the Court for their consideration????

[sdcal]

I remember Mark's post about this. I found it amusing.

I urge anyone to read both laws as written. The 1790 law requiring merchant ships to carry a supply of medicine seems like more like a modern Coast Guard regulation to me. The 1792 law requiring the militia to supply their own arms does only applies to militia not everyone.

If these were such "earth shaking" revelations why has no Obamacare supporter provided an amicus curiae brief about these laws to the Court for their consideration????

Did you read the article? As far as the merchant ships, "In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."

And for the militia, it says "required all able-bodied men to buy firearms." Not just members of the militia.

[Naturist Mark]

I remember Mark's post about this. I found it amusing.

I urge anyone to read both laws as written. The 1790 law requiring merchant ships to carry a supply of medicine seems like more like a modern Coast Guard regulation to me. The 1792 law requiring the militia to supply their own arms does only applies to militia not everyone.

Ahhh ... so you found something in the Constitution that allows mandates for a segment of the population that excludes all those who aren't privately employed merchant sailors, or a segment that excludes everyone that isn't a free men of militia age, but doesn't allow a mandate that excludes minors, people over age 65, and active military. Fascinating.

If these were such "earth shaking" revelations why has no Obamacare supporter provided an amicus curiae brief about these laws to the Court for their consideration????

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

[jon71]

If the Constitution is reinterpreted, its because SCOTUS thinks it made a mistake (or wants to make a mistake). You can't know where your Constitution stands if it keeps walking around, and words that had meaning one day can be ignored the next. If you can reinterpret the Constitution to do whatever you want, then you might as well throw it out, because it doesn't do anything at that point.

For good bad or other than is the reality.

[jon71]

This isn't the clip I was looking for but it's worth hearing anyway. In the one I was searching for Gov. Spitzer went into detail about one of the people behind one of the lawsuits against health care saying she had the "right" to not buy insurance and her freedoms were being trampled, all the usual right wing talking points. What happened to her? She needed medical care, went to the emergency room and ran up a huge bill that she couldn't pay so the tax payers paid her medical bill instead. As a former Governon Spitzer knows about the fund that every state has to pay unpaid emergency room costs just like that. That is what conservatives want, the "freedom" to stick you and me with their bills.



http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/9...ransigence.htm

[Gloria]

Ahhh ... so you found something in the Constitution that allows mandates for a segment of the population that excludes all those who aren't privately employed merchant sailors, or a segment that excludes everyone that isn't a free men of militia age, but doesn't allow a mandate that excludes minors, people over age 65, and active military. Fascinating.


http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

Well what do you know.....someone did make the lame argument about the obligations imposed on the militia in 1792. But I don't find anything about insuring merchant seamen in that brief.
Did i miss it?

[Gloria]

This isn't the clip I was looking for but it's worth hearing anyway. In the one I was searching for Gov. Spitzer went into detail about one of the people behind one of the lawsuits against health care saying she had the "right" to not buy insurance and her freedoms were being trampled, all the usual right wing talking points. What happened to her? She needed medical care, went to the emergency room and ran up a huge bill that she couldn't pay so the tax payers paid her medical bill instead. As a former Governon Spitzer knows about the fund that every state has to pay unpaid emergency room costs just like that. That is what conservatives want, the "freedom" to stick you and me with their bills.



http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/9...ransigence.htm

The fund you say is used by every state to pay unpaid emergency room costs is Medicaid. That is not exactly a favorite of Conservatives. We pay our own bills and would expect everyone to do the same. We are not excited about being forced to buy insurance we do not need or want so someone else can get a free ride.