Supreme Court ObamaCare

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Are you a citizen of the United States Dog . . . or only one of them? I am not a citizen of New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 States - I am a citizen of Colorado. I am not merely a resident of Colorado and a citizen of the United States in the same fashion as I am a resident of Park County and a citizen of Colorado. I am not a citizen of Park County, Park County is a wholly contained subsidiary of the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is not a wholly contained subsidiary of the United States. Remember the diagrams of sets and subsets from your elementary education? A diagram representing the United States would not be one big set containing 50 subsets. Instead it would be 50 sets with a portion of each of those sets included in another set called the United States of America. The Constitution establishes a representative republic of coordinate governments, not a single, central government.

I am proud to be a citizen of the United States which I will be regardless of whether I am in Park County or in New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 states. Colorado and each of the other states and territories are most definitely a subset of the United States. Remember that the Articles of Confederation were expressly replaced by the Constitution to strengthen the power of the federal government.

No Dog, they are not mere subsets within the larger set. They are sets of their own. They are free, independent and sovereign States - the constitution of this State, and every other one as well, expressly and distinctly establishes this point of fact - a constitution which was accepted as valid by all the member States in the union in 1876 when Colorado ceased to be a territory or possession of the United States in common and was accepted into the union of States as an equally free, independent and sovereign member of that union. The whole of our judicial record confirms that the States are separate and sovereign entities. The whole of our judicial record confirms that the federal government is one of limited rather than plenary powers - which would not be the case at all if Colorado was a mere subsidiary of the United States in the same manner that Park County is a subsidiary of the State of Colorado. Park County is not sovereign - Colorado is.

I know that you desire for the general government to be central government of sovereign powers instead of a federal government with limited delegated powers, but that is not what the Constitution established, however much you desire it.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Are you a citizen of the United States Dog . . . or only one of them? I am not a citizen of New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 States - I am a citizen of Colorado. I am not merely a resident of Colorado and a citizen of the United States in the same fashion as I am a resident of Park County and a citizen of Colorado. I am not a citizen of Park County, Park County is a wholly contained subsidiary of the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is not a wholly contained subsidiary of the United States. Remember the diagrams of sets and subsets from your elementary education? A diagram representing the United States would not be one big set containing 50 subsets. Instead it would be 50 sets with a portion of each of those sets included in another set called the United States of America. The Constitution establishes a representative republic of coordinate governments, not a single, central government.

I am proud to be a citizen of the United States which I will be regardless of whether I am in Park County or in New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 states. Colorado and each of the other states and territories are most definitely a subset of the United States. Remember that the Articles of Confederation were expressly replaced by the Constitution to strengthen the power of the federal government.

No Dog, they are not mere subsets within the larger set. They are sets of their own. They are free, independent and sovereign States - the constitution of this State, and every other one as well, expressly and distinctly establishes this point of fact - a constitution which was accepted as valid by all the member States in the union in 1876 when Colorado ceased to be a territory or possession of the United States in common and was accepted into the union of States as an equally free, independent and sovereign member of that union. The whole of our judicial record confirms that the States are separate and sovereign entities. The whole of our judicial record confirms that the federal government is one of limited rather than plenary powers - which would not be the case at all if Colorado was a mere subsidiary of the United States in the same manner that Park County is a subsidiary of the State of Colorado. Park County is not sovereign - Colorado is.

I know that you desire for the general government to be central government of sovereign powers instead of a federal government with limited delegated powers, but that is not what the Constitution established, however much you desire it.

Nope, you are back in your fantasy world. Each state is a subset of the United States, each state is governed and controlled by the United States Constitution. Perhaps you need a refresher course in the constitution, particularly Article Six.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I'm constantly amazed at how much his gullibility over the "general government" silliness trumps the truth.

I found it interesting that while the Supremes did make their decisions today they're allowed to change their minds and rewrite the seperate opinions until the announcement in June.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

Actually you are quite wrong. In 1798 the founding fathers enacted a tax in order to build government hospitals for naval seamen. “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

Of course, no one then howled about socialized medicine. Speaking of delusions.

Ever hear of the Merchant Marines Dog? It's a civilian auxiliary of the Navy and has always been subject to the authority of the general government because all authority for trade agreements with foreign nations were delegated to the general government, as was the responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy for the union. That is why trade vessels registered in the United States fly the flag of the United States, even if foreign owned. This is another of the arguments along the lines of the Congress getting to tell the militia how they were to be equipped when called to serve the United States. It was allowed precisely because this was an area where the Constitution actually delegated authority to the Congress directly and no invention of authority through new "interpretations" being applied to the law as written was necessary for Congress to exercise its authority in a proper manner.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I was referring to earlier post by PS where he wanted to get the "government" out of mandating ER care for all regardless of their ability to pay. If hospitals were allowed to give ER care to only those who have insurance or cash in hand, where does that leave those unfortunates who are in dire need for ER care and are turned away from the ER? Luckily for those unfortunates, such compassionate conservatives such as yourself and PS were overruled by the majority of the citizens of this great country.

Of course he was also misleading in claiming that the taxpayers are required to pay for those unable to pay, when in fact those costs are shifted to those who are able to pay since there currently is no individual mandate.

Again you lie. What I advocated was getting the "general government" out of mandating how the state governments chose to care for the individual welfare of their citizens. There were, and remain, charity hospitals who would care for everyone regardless of their ability to pay before the general government stuck its nose under this particular tent. The absence of a general government mandate does not preclude the presence of a state government mandate to the same effect, as your scare tactics wish to suggest. What the absence of a general government mandate would result in, however, is a situation whereby the state governments had the ability to institute their own programs in accordance with the needs of their citizens and tailored to those needs instead of wasting countless dollars that could be used to address the needs of their citizens trying to remain in compliance with a one size fits none federal mandate.

An absence of federal mandates does not mean an absence of compassionate care courtesy of the charity of one's fellow citizens Dog. I know "progressives" like to think that if it weren't for federal government there'd be no government at all, and gloom, despair and agony would reign supreme, but that simply isn't the case.

Geee, thanks for the diversionary and irrelevant history lesson about the Merchant Marines. If the citizens of this country decide that hospitals serving the public and taking money from the taxpayers of this country should serve even the poor and uninsured if they require emergency life saving care, then that is the decision of the majority of the citizenry.

What is this latest boogey man "general government"? It is humorous how you portray the federal government as some sort of monolithic boogey man running around and taking control of the poor little states. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the federal government is the representative of the citizens of this great country. The sole power of the federal government is based on the decisions and wishes of the citizenry in accordance with the Constitution, even Article Six which requires that each state be subservient to the laws and treaties of the federal government.

That is where you err Dog. The laws established by the general government are only supreme within the powers delegated to the federal government - which is why the individual mandate is about to be struck down along with everything that was built upon that rotten foundation. The Constitution did not, and does not, establish a central government endowed with the plenary powers of a sovereign government. What the Constitution did establish was a federal government of limited powers that were delegated from the States and to be administered through a single common entity that was populated by representatives of the legislatures of the States in equal measure to represent their equal standing as sovereign States and representatives of the citizens of those States in proportion to the percentage of the entire population of all of the States that they represented.

The federal government may not set a speed limit within a State. The limit of its authority is its ability to withhold funds appropriated from the general treasury for the maintenance of the roads if the sovereign government of the State decides not to adopt the speed that the federal government is trying to blackmail them into implementing. The limit on its authority for Medicaid is the same. The federal government may not compel participation in the program by any State, all it can do is attempt to blackmail them into complying through the threat of collecting taxes from the citizens of that State while failing to return any of the money collected from them and appropriated from the general treasury to provide them with medical care. The federal government may not send the army into any state without the consent of that State's legislature or executive when the State is not in rebellion. There are many limits on what you are trying to refer to as "the sole power of the federal government" because . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . the federal government is not a central government endowed with the plenary power to do whatever it wishes, whenever it wishes, to whomever it wishes. It is only supreme within its delegated powers. Those powers not delegated to it by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The States are prohibited by the Constitution from coining money, from maintaining their own army, from negotiating agreements with foreign nations or other States belonging to the union. The States are not prohibited by the Constitution from providing for the individual welfare of their citizens, and as such that power is reserved by them to be exercised by them. That is why Massachusetts can establish a law to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance and the general government cannot establish a similar law that places the citizens of every state under a similar compulsion. Massachusetts is a free, independent and sovereign State. The federal government administers the sovereign powers of the States that have been delegated to it, it is not itself a sovereign power. This is why the States have general police powers and the federal government does not have general police powers.

These are all matters of fact Dog, not opinion. These founding principles have been upheld at every level of our jurisprudence. Madison came to the Philadelphia Convention with a plan for the type of government you are desirous of - and it was rejected by the delegates to that convention who chose instead to create a representative constitutional republic of coordinate governments where the powers of the federal government were strictly limited and the powers of the State governments was virtually without any limits outside of the prohibitions to exercise their sovereignty in the areas delegated to the federal government to administer.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

Actually you are quite wrong. In 1798 the founding fathers enacted a tax in order to build government hospitals for naval seamen. “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service. Of course, no one then howled about socialized medicine. Speaking of delusions.

What next... you'll probably be telling us that Obama's mother died of cancer or something because she couldn't get proper health insurance coverage. Try that for a leftist talking point.

Interesting insight...

Why Did Legal Elites Underestimate the Case Against the Mandate?

What explains this state of affairs? I believe there are several factors at work, but one in particular is the increasing separation of the legal academy from the practice of law — a separation that is greatest in fields, such as constitutional law, that touch on broad questions of public policy. At many schools, academics are more interested in developing a comprehensive theory of justice than in divining the nuances buried in the Court’s cases. Junior academics are routinely discouraged from doctrinal scholarship and pushed to develop broad overarching and original theories for what the law should be. Constitutional scholarship in particular is increasingly focused on theory and less on the law. In some corners, it’s more important to reconcile one’s claims with the writings of John Rawls than the opinions of John Roberts.

Read the whole article at...

http://volokh.com/2012/03/30/why-did-le ... e-mandate/

"Everyone wins a trophy" is the product that has been sold to masses during the last two decades. The result is that not everyone knows how to play the legal game. A mind is certainly a terrible thing to waste.

archer wrote: I believe that people who are compassionate and loving and caring embrace the liberal philosophy and reject the philosophy of the conservatives. Again, just my opinion.

Another opinion.

......."wealthy liberals blatantly use social liberalism and big government regulation to protect their relative position in society. Big government regulation and taxation thwarts the economic mobility of those trying to move up, allowing the elites to remain elite, while still seeming pious for all their apparent efforts to help the little people".............

http://townhall.com/columnists/armstron ... ral_causes

That's most ridiculous bit of drivel I've seen in awhile...(if you don't count the fantasy-world ravings of PrintSmith...)