Look, Folks. All I know is what I read in the newspapers, as my brother from Claremore, Oklahoma, used to say.
However, one would be hard pressed to write better fiction than the reality that large, intrusive, government provides. The latest example has President Obama’s Department of Justice siding with the majority of the States in their effort to have the core component of the Patient Protection and Affordable [Health] Care Act (ACA) evaluated by the Supreme Court.
Patient Protection
&
Affordable Care
Act
===============
THE HYSTERICAL BACKGROUND
This piece of legislation, with its Orwellian title, mandates that, eventually, all of us must purchase health insurance. Those that can not shall, of course, have their premiums subsidized by the rest of us. Those that will not shall, of course, have their wallets punished by those who supposedly represent us.
The Obama administration is now 1-1-1 in the federal appeals court battle over this central provision of the law. A federal appeals court of the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati has ruled (2-1) that this provision is constitutional. A federal appeals court of the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta ruled (2-1) this past month that this provision is unconstitutional.
Finally, a federal appeals court of the Fourth Circuit in Richmond (Virginia) ordered two lower court decisions vacated on the basis that the plaintiffs were unqualified to sue, since they had not yet been harmed by the ACA. Both lower court decisions in the Fourth Circuit had declared the central mandate of the ACA constitutional.
================
THE BURNING IN ATLANTA
The Atlanta ruling is particularly significant. It comes as the result of a case brought by the State of Florida.
The Sunshine State was joined in its action by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The fact that a majority of the States joined to oppose the ACA alone makes this case noteworthy.
In addition, the federal government lost its defense of the ACA badly in the lower court in two important ways:
- The individual mandate to purchase health insurance was declared unconstitutional.
- The individual mandate provision was deemed sufficiently critical to the legislative objective of the ACA that its unconstitutionality thereby rendered the entire Act unconstitutional.
The Atlanta appeals court agreed with the lower court on the first point. It disagreed with the lower court on the second point. Therefore, both the federal government AND the States had grounds on which to appeal the Atlanta appellate court ruling.
The States petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari on the day before yesterday citing the basis that the individual mandate is not severable from the entire ACA. This left President Obama, and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, with some tough choices.
==================
THE LESSER OF THREE WEEVILS
After the Atlanta decision on August 12, 2011, Obama and Holder had three options, each with important consequences:
- They could do nothing.
- Within 90 days from the decision, they could request that this case be reheard ‘en banc’ by a larger flock of judges on the Eleventh Circuit.
- Within 90 days from the decision, they could appeal the decision of the Eleventh Circuit to the Supreme Court.
In doing nothing, the president leaves standing his loss in Atlanta on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, while preserving his victory on the severability of this section of the Act from the remainder. In practical terms, however, the ACA is an even greater economic disaster without the individual mandate; and Barack knows this. Hence, the President cannot let this part of the Atlanta ruling stand. Therefore, he must appeal via either options 2 or 3.
In appealing to the same court again, this time with a full panel of jurists, the President risks that they will affirm the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate and that they will reverse themselves on the unconstitutionality of the Act. This would exacerbate the president’s loss, reduce the possibility that the Supreme Court would grant the president a complete victory, and delay a Supreme Court decision until after the election in November, 2012.
So, you guessed it! Yesterday Mr. Holder filed his petition for a Writ of Certiorari to go through Door # 3.
He wants the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate – exactly what the States have requested from the lower courts. The motivation is, of course, to acquire a decision next summer after a hearing during the term that begins, traditionally, this Monday after the court's summer recess.
================
THE JOINING OF STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
Thus, it has come to pass, during the course of this past week, that the Obama administration has now joined with the States to be heard on the question of whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by seeking to impose a mandate that would require every American to purchase health insurance. It nearly has the appearance of the federal government suing itself.
Will such miracles ever cease?
This really makes one wonder what Barack, who is a lawyer, albeit without much experience, but who has, as a member of the bar, taught courses on constitutional law, was thinking as he and his once monolithic Party apparatus steamed-rolled this legislation through the “we must pass this now and read it later” Congress of Speaker Pelosi. Perhaps they all had hard ons over what they were doing to that poor, misguided, minority across the aisle. Perhaps they thought they would be enraptured on the day of the passage of the ACA because the socialist Nirvana of national healthcare had been achieved in America.
Whatever. . . .
In the immortal words of gaffe-prone Joe Biden, it will be a big, fucking, deal if the Supreme Court decides that all, or part, of the ACA is unconstitutional. If it does, then the President will surely lose any chance at being reelected. It might be the only time this President instituted a lawsuit, won it and lost it no matter what the outcome, and argued against himself while doing it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Sean Fenley
Max Frank
Uncle Chris
Deborah Young
Peter Breschard
Jeana Morris
Salon.com
Comments
I'm doing one on this subject. If you want to know where you're wrong, just ask.
Oh, gawd, say it isn't so.
Good summary and astute analysis here. Rated.
Charles Krathammer has an interesting take on this. He posits it as a win/win situation for Obama. If the act is upheld, Obama comes off well, and if the act is struck down, Obama's off the hook on his disastrous brain child. I'd be interested in YOUR further thoughts.
Hey! Thanks for dropping by . . . !
Please note that I am happy to leave your comment up because you always provide such great targets.
If anybody can find the justification in the Magna Carta for governmental regulation of the inactivity of choosing not to buy health insurance, you can. However, no matter what the next topic of your blog is, I always look forward to its entertainment value.
Write on!
The idea that because both parties filed writs with the court it means they are both seeking the same thing--a constitutional review-- and that makes them "bedfellows" is silly. Really, really silly, as in Can't Grasp The Obvious.
The idea that this dual filing is highly unusual is also silly.
The idea the DOJ/Obama are suing themselves must rise out of your confusion that doesn't recognize a couple of simple facts, even after you state those facts.
They are not joining the 26 state's case by requesting the court rule on the constitutionality of the mandate.
The DOJ is filing against the 11th's ruling the mandate is unconstitutional.
26 states are -limiting this to just the mandate--filing against the 11th's ruling that it's severable.
It's hard to say they're bedfellows when they are seeking review for two different requests. Well, it would be hard for some of us, anyway, who value reality. Not so hard for you, obviously.
The story the DOJ wouldn't seek an en banc review came well ahead of the due date, so there was no Moment of Decision coming after the 26 filed their writ. Everyone filed on the same day, and that they would was a fait acompli.
The 11th's decision would only stand within that court's jurisdiction if "ignored."
That it is in conflict with the 6th gives the case a 99.99% probability of a Supreme review at some point.
If the 11th had agreed with the 6th, the DOJ wouldn't have asked for a S Court review, for what should be obvious reasons.
The 26 states would have asked the Court to review the 11th's upholding of the mandate if that was the decision, though if the appellate courts weren't conflicted their request would have a far weaker chance of being heard.
So, you're saying something that's absolutely normal as a matter of course is a highly unusual occurrence. What's the next post-- Sun Rises: Here's Why We Should be Amazed?
Saying that both sides filing writs makes them bedfellows is tragically obtuse. Saying the President is suing himself exceeds even the "tragically obtuse" label, shooting your premise beyond Earthly bounds.
That aside, you couldn't argue the constitutional issues involved anyway, so I won't waste time with that here.
Always good to read your thoughts . . . .
I can't find the Krauthammer piece to which you refer. However, in looking, I did read his recent piece regarding Obama's reversion to his true self, a " . . . . soak the rich, self-proclaimed class warrior . . .".
Here, Krauthammer seems accurate, not only with respect to BO, but also with respect to the ideology of socialism. We should all be happy to become a homogeneous mass of equally miserable citizens, no matter how much we destroy the country in achieving this ideal.
The ACA seems one component of such thinking.
It's easy to see the perspective of your summary of Krauthammer's opinion of BO's exit from the appeals to the Supreme Court regarding he constitutionality of the ACA. It's just that my belief has always been that Presidents should be held accountable for such mistakes as this.
Say hello to my brother, Will Rogers, next time you get away from your computer. . . .
With respect to my title, it got you here . . . . That’s the only requirement I insist upon for this portion of any posting on this blog.
Thanks for the suggestion of my next title. It was actually going to be, “Sun Will Rise Despite Cancellation of Pre-dawn Milk Run”
With respect to the rest of your scattered thoughts, I stand by what I wrote.
Another comment will put it in the feed again, so here's one.
You suggest finding a justification for regulating inactivity, though let's put this in a constitutional frame and add: in the Constitution.
That's not the question, as "inactivity," no matter how you view the contrivance, is not in the Constitution, so it's not a standard. What you need to show, if limiting it to the Constitution, is where it disallows laws based on "inactivity."
Once you realize it's not there, the fun begins.
While we wait for your post, let's start with the Tenth Amendment here . . . .
Go ahead. . . .
I'm just offering help here because I have a pretty solid grasp on the arguments and CC precedents. I wouldn't *ahem* write even a ditty on this and other things if I didn't have a sufficient understanding, even beyond what I address.
Besides, my comment above pretty well makes it's own point, and doesn't require reciprocation. It isn't in the Constitution, so it doesn't disallow it. It was a mildly trickish Q.
Just for the sake of sayin' it--
The ObamaCare law enters the Supreme Court with the same presumption of constitutionality it had when it came before the appellate courts. The 11th means nothing to that as far as the SC goes, so the law is constitutional now. The fact it's solidly constitutional anyway is an easy argument compared to the challenge, which is merely noisy hokum. The other fact is the SC can only deny the mandate is constitutional by stepping all over precedent, even the rulings of those now sitting on the court. Even (say it ain't so!) Scalia.
Nuff said, unless you're wanting to CC weed-wander.
Weather's good, I'm betting we both have better things to do.
I have 500 cyberbux that says the 26ers don't pound the 10th. They'd best leave it in its tangential condition.
I would have to agree with PJO. I have studied the court's commerce clause jurisprudence. Add it all up, and the court essentially allows Congress, with only the sham "rational basis" requirement, to legislate upon any activity that is not only noncommercial, but also confined within a single state. As law professor Lino Graglia concluded:
"In sum, N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937) signaled, and U.S. v. Darby (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirmed, the Court's de facto withdrawal from Commerce Clause review. Katzenbach v. McClung's (1964) announcement of the rational basis test made the withdrawal virtually de jure. Since Jones & Laughlin, the Court had engaged in only pretend review; since U.S. v. Sullivan (1948) and Katzenbach, the Court and Congress have hardly bothered to keep up the pretense."
Graglia writes, "The practice of law requires a high embarrassment threshold, but Commerce Clause reasoning raises it higher than even lawyers should have to go."
In other words, the modern day act by the court of reviewing cases to see if Congress exceeded its commerce clause authority is a farce, an embarrassing charade, a waste of time. We know that they will find no limits. Since 1937, the court stopped finding any limits. It won't find any limits without inventing an arbitrary exception to their already absurd and limitless commerce clause interpretations.
[U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was only an aberration that involved a trivial technical issue and did not overturn any prior cases. And yes, even Scalia has accepted the post-1937 "interpretations." Scalia also accepts the "incorporation doctrine" as well. So much for the claim that Scalia is a originalist.]
Now, whether or not Obamacare is authorized by the intended meaning of the commerce clause is a whole other issue that I don't have the patience to get into right now.
And I agree here:
"The practice of law requires a high embarrassment threshold, but Commerce Clause reasoning raises it higher than even lawyers should have to go."
While we surely see this differently as to means-ends, that is awfully true. My first impulse there is to also point at Gonzales-v-Raich as the stretchiest of the stretching. However, the Bright Line Limit to the CC is probably unattainable through anything but the political process and case-by-case judicial review, which isn't a bad thing...it's just a thing.
ObamaCare is a natural fit for the CC, of course, and far more than school guns and intrastate dope smoking. That h-care is within the scope of the CC is obvious. The mandate is the issue, but there, regulating participation is far, far less a leap than is made in either of those other 2 cases.
I'm getting a temporary kumbya vibe here. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with it. :)
“It isn't in the Constitution, so it doesn't disallow it.” . . . . WTF?
Here, for our reader’s reference, is the text of the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The meaning of your statement is clearly not equivalent to the meaning of the statement of the Tenth Amendment. . . So, either your writing is unclear, or you are incorrect in whatever you are trying to assert here.
========
To the limited extent it is mentioned in the ACA cases, the Tenth Amendment isn’t being argued by the States upon some generalized principle of federalism. The Tenth is being mentioned in these arguments because the USSC most often uses this amendment to prohibit the national government from forcing the State governments to enforce federal law, rules, or regulations. With respect to the specific terms of the ACA, this seems an applicable, relevant, and significant argument.
Nevertheless, to the degree the Tenth Amendment was intended to limit federal authority, to protect State rights, and, more to the point, in conjunction with the Ninth Amendment, to shield citizens from the overreaching that so often arises from great power, my belief is that this amendment serves a purpose in the ACA case as a “scent in the room”, as you suggest. It serves to limit the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause so closely associated with your treasured Commerce Clause.
To continue with your references in your most recent comment, if the Commerce Clause is seen by the government as the way to the end, then the Necessary and Commerce Clause must be their authorization of the means to that end. The Tenth is what keeps the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause in check, in the ACA case. Otherwise, there would be no limit to the implied powers people (such as yourself) would believe are assigned to the federal government.
==========
With regard to the Commerce Clause, the mandate requiring individuals to purchase insurance seeks to regulate even those who are healthy, but inert, relative to any commerce contemplated by the act. These are persons not participating in any activity relevant to the act, interstate or otherwise.
This is an important point.
The only things that distinguish these people, who do not have health insurance, from those this administration clearly exempts (the dead and the incompetent) are that they can choose (since they are still alive) and that they are well (since they have the potential for becoming ill). This is quite a punishment for being animate and able-bodied as an American under the ACA. The extrapolated ramifications of such collectivist thinking are multitudinous, ludicrous, and Orwellian.
========
Part of the basis for the government’s position regarding the Commerce Clause seems to be some whining about those who fit in this class nevertheless affecting healthcare for all when they, for example, show up at emergency rooms without such insurance. This argument seems amazingly circular when one discovers that most of this effect has to do with the federal welfare state as instituted through Medicare and Medicaid, which the ACA seeks to expand.
Further, showing at the emergency room without health insurance does not imply that the patient cannot, or will not, pay. However, I am certain these are covered in the averaged, macro statistics that underwrite socialist arguments along these lines.
In addition, this argument seems motivated by something well beyond the polemics associated with its theoretical constitutionality. The ACA doesn’t come close to economic viability unless all those who are healthy jump into the insurance pool with those who are ill. Only then can insurance rates fall to the point where they might be ‘affordable’ for the 40+ million Americans who do not have health insurance, by voluntary choice or not. This might not be allowed as an argument regarding constitutional severability; however, it damn sure is one relative to practical severability.
The side effect often mentioned here is that healthy people, who might otherwise have the liberty not to spend the money to purchase unneeded and unwanted protection, would be effectively subsidizing the rates of those who require, or desire, such protection. It would be one of those subsidies imposed by federal statute but handled by private entities.
==========
OK, your turn . . . but . . . your arguments are reduced, not enhanced, by name calling and ad hominem attacks.
Stick to the points and be as objective and dispassionate as you can.
Above all, don’t post while under the influence.
Here it is Sunday; and I have got to get to church.
Thanks for coming, reading, and commenting. . . .
I am in a rush. I see some interesting items in your comment, particularly your mention of the Garcia case.
Be advised, there is no law degree hanging on my wall.
I am sorry. . I am hallucinating. . . You didn't mention Garcia. . .
Got to go. . .
There is no constitutional mention of "inactivity." Therefore, it's not a constitutional standard. If it was, then there would be no military draft, as one example. The 26ers seek to make it a CC interpretive method, but it's not foundational. I was quite clear, and now expansively clear, and it has nothing to do with the 10th amendment. The problem is on your end.
=====
The 10th was never meant to limit federal authority, it's just a restatement of the Constitution's obvious implication -- the federal government will operate in its sphere and the states within theirs. The Constitution is obviously and intentionally a contract that applied limits to the states. That's the whole reason it was created, so the idea the 10th was meant to limit federal power is absurd.
The "police power" argument isn't swaying any ruling, as the ACA doesn't co-opt the states' systems to enforce it, and the states can opt-out of administering federal h-care program expansion by refusing the funding offered. Healthcare, unlike the issue of what should be strictly state/local policing of behavior, is obviously within the scope of federal action, so that argument has found no support in the rulings as well. The police powers argument has been a real loser so far.
This is telling:
"Otherwise, there would be no limit to the implied powers people (such as yourself) would believe are assigned to the federal government."
You don't know what you're talking about per the 10th and police powers, and you sure as hell aren't qualified to say what I think or argue it on the same level. If you knew scat from meatloaf, you would have understood what I was saying to Larry about the federal wish to overreach in Lopez and the wish being granted in Gonzales-Raich. In both cases, the attachments to interstate commerce were extrapolation fantasies.
The states aren't arguing that the states cannot regulate inactivity, as they obviously do in healthcare and auto insurance. This is why it's not a case of a foundational, all-encompassing question of liberty. It is about federalism -- states can do it, Congress can't. That is why the 10th is tangential, as it is inert on the facts of the case. It only serves it as a non-committal "like, DUH!" statement, and your use of it here can be categorized as the same. At least to those who actually know what those concepts represent.
=====
You say:
"With regard to the Commerce Clause, the mandate requiring individuals to purchase insurance seeks to regulate even those who are healthy, but inert, relative to any commerce contemplated by the act. These are persons not participating in any activity relevant to the act, interstate or otherwise.
This is an important point."
It's an important point because it's the kernel of the case. However, the definition of the "inert," non-purchasing, non-committal and therefore beyond the reach of the CC individual is a stretch, because regardless of perception or intent, they are part of the risk pool. You're saying those in the non-paying part of the risk pool have a constitutional right to shift the costs of their healthcare onto others.
There's a lot more to that argument, and it is THE argument, but no sense is hashing it out in total, or here.
However, you say:
"The extrapolated ramifications of such collectivist thinking are multitudinous, ludicrous, and Orwellian."
A mouthful, but as good a summation of the type of argument the 26ers are offering and that adults with reasonable minds reject as the time-worn logical fallacy of the Slippery Slope. They can't find the constitutional argument, and are denied support in the precedents, so they try to drag in the specter of a rampaging boogieman. I'm not surprised you repeat it here, as it well describes the disjointed and repetitive nature of all your arguments (both of them) and why you have a hard time being taken seriously.
====
They do shift the costs to others, and that fact has nothing to do with your usual argument about Medicare driving up costs. I've seen it, and it's not a sound argument, and it is irrelevant to the question of cost-shifting anyway. Medicare operates more efficiently than private, so explain that away...but please...some other time.
Ditto your usual babble about socialists. Someday I hope you learn the meaning of the word and are able to use it in context. Until then, it's meaningless. Remember, under your scatter-shot definition, the Founders and Greatest Generation were socialists.
Getting the Free Riders into the pool isn't so much about lowering costs as it is enabling insurance companies to move away from coverage denials, etc. Saying that which makes it work means that's why it's "practically severable" makes zero sense.
You say:
"The side effect often mentioned here is that healthy people, who might otherwise have the liberty not to spend the money to purchase unneeded and unwanted protection, would be effectively subsidizing the rates of those who require, or desire, such protection. It would be one of those subsidies imposed by federal statute but handled by private entities."
You just described how the insurance business works. Those paying customers in the risk pool who don't use the service subsidize those who do. Your point? I mean, beyond verbiage-volume?
In closing, a last laugh:
"OK, your turn . . . but . . . your arguments are reduced, not enhanced, by name calling and ad hominem attacks."
Typical of those who don't have the chops or knowledge to argue their points. Y'all tend to see the deconstruction of your ill-informed and unformed offerings as being as personally attached as having your fingers hammered. I deconstruct based on a factual set and a reasoned assessment. I was trained along those lines for years, among people who would thrash errors of fact and logic as an enjoyable exercise in Tough Love. If you persist in offering counter-factual responses and don't concede your factual errors, then I might well call you a flap-ass jackass, but by then I'm just describing a condition your have implicitly admitted.
Don't get better "whines," get better arguments and skills...if you can. All arguments aren't equal, just as all people cannot be, except, hopefully, before their God or their civil laws. I don't offer affirmative action for the undeserving arguments.
In the same vein, and ironically, does this look familiar:
"Otherwise, there would be no limit to the implied powers people (such as yourself) would believe are assigned to the federal government."
The pot wants to call the kettle black
But not because they're the same
Because it lack the skills of defense and attack
And it wants a kettle to blame
Unfortunately, we cannot continue this conversation.
========
Here’s what you wrote:
“The 10th was never meant to limit federal authority, it's just a restatement of the Constitution's obvious implication – . . . .”
“The Constitution is obviously and intentionally a contract that applied limits to the states. That's the whole reason it was created, so the idea the 10th was meant to limit federal power is absurd.”
These statements are individually and collectively ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about the historical origin of our supreme law. They are an irrational interpretation of the literal meaning of the constitutional text.
========
THE TENTH AMENDMENT
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth affirms that the power and the authority of the national government of the United States are limited. It specifically states that all powers not given to the national government by the Constitution are assigned to others, specifically to the States or to individuals.
It’s true that its inclusion was believed unnecessary by its authors, given the understanding they had of the document they wrote. However, the Tenth was incorporated with the original set of Amendments precisely because the original State electorates expressed such great concern regarding a limited national government that Madison wrote to his colleagues of his fear that the Constitution would not be ratified without its inclusion.
I will grant that the federal government has apparently come to believe that its power and authority are unlimited and are not confined to those expressed, or reasonably implied, by the Constitution. However, that is what is to be decided here; and that is . . . clearly . . . and without question . . . . in direct opposition to the intention of the Tenth.
This is well beyond your standard argument about the absence of "expressly" as a word excluded by Madison in the Tenth Amendment. No logical person could reason, as you do, that if no comment on a power is made in the Constitution, then such power is “not disallowed” the national government. (Paul, perhaps you haven’t . . . not . . . heard of the clarity associated with the elimination of double negatives in your writing.)
========
You also wrote this:
“The ‘police power’ argument isn't swaying any ruling, as the ACA doesn't co-opt the states' systems to enforce it, and the states can opt-out of administering federal h-care program expansion by refusing the funding offered.”
It isn’t true that the ACA doesn’t seek to have the States enforce national statutes and the rules and regulations promulgated therewith. However, it’s easy to overlook this incorrect assertion in light of the criminal extortion you are endorsing with this statement.
In foregoing, for whatever reason, the funds provided under ACA, do you believe the States would stand idly by and let the national government nevertheless tax their citizens for healthcare benefits they will not receive? If you do believe this is in any way reasonable, practical, or just, then why don’t you send me a $1,000 for Uncle’s Fire Protection Plan; and I will see that your place doesn’t burn down next week, OK?
My guess is that any State administrative entity that would submit to this under the ACA would quickly change its mind in the face of the mob that would descend upon it. In fact, I can see State employees, both elected and appointed, going to Washington with a target list consisting of (535 + 9 + 1 =) 545 individuals.
========
It’s easy to see why you have to reach to such absurdities in support of your case for the ACA. However, you’re on Mars, Paul.
We’re not going to resolve anything through a discussion that begins with such interplanetary positions. We will only confuse the issue while you waste my time.
You're not even close on the 10th amendment. It is not designed to limit federal power and never was. You will not find a single ruling or anything but a scatterbrained argument that says that's what it's about. It. Is. Inert. It does nothing to limit federal power.
I almost amended the comment about limiting states as being what the Constitution was all about. It's about creating a strong United States with a federal government, and limiting state power was essential to that, and a direct artifact of that. The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation -- a document you apparently think is superior -- didn't work and almost, according to G Washington, cost the US the war.
Your argument is something you pulled out of your hindparts, makes no sense to history or the text of the Constitution or 10th amendment. You have done no or next to no studying on this subject. The airbrained part is where you assume "limited powers" means what you want it to mean.
The Federal government does have limited powers, and one of those powers is to regulate commerce. That is a general power, and it's not "limited" when you say it is. That's not a standard.
You must not know this, in fact, I'm sure you don't, given your amateurish way of arguing. You flap and cackle, and think flapping and cackling are some form of reasoned support from the mish-mash-mush you offer as conclusive. You did not provide, at all, any REAL support for saying the ACA is a violation of the 10th. Further, the legal geniuses bringing the lawsuit somehow missed this golden nugget of constitutional insight and legal reasoning. That you try to advance it here or anywhere is a huge, rolling, choking, gasping for breath laughable pile of self-generated nothingness.
You try to support the police powers argument, which is so firm and complete in your mind (if that term applies) that every court this has been before dismissed it. Again, Chris, the constitutional genius, knows this better than judges and legal scholars.
I know you like thinking you're intelligent, but you can't effectively embellish crap into gold with a few 50 dollar words. You would be better off not knowing anything than thinking this mental case babbling you offer represents something besides a Grand Display of Worse Than Nothing.
The funniest thing about this exchange isn't your non-defense of your bizarre mental meanderings, or your near total ignorance of the Constitution and history of it. The funniest thing is you puff up and perform this rambling act of pretending you're educating from a position of knowledge, logic and reason when you're the flaming dumbass who wrote a post saying the President is Suing Himself. That took some real quality thinkin' there, Einstein.
You're a joke, Chris, and a fool. You aggressively express your ignorance, so you qualify as an Idiot. You're not witty, as that is a byproduct of intelligence. You couldn't form a logical construct if it was drawn up for you as a connect-the-dots puzzle.
You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. I'd say 'even yourself," but it's obvious, through various Chris OS comments and posts, that you truly do think you're intelligent in those areas on which you write.
Now you can cry about ad hominem, but I'm not saying anything that isn't abundantly true. However, that's the only defense you have.
If you were smart enough to realize how damn stupid you are, the fact I'm so much smarter would just kill you. Of course, this is true of many people, from Paris Hilton to Stephen Hawking, so I'm not making a claim to glory anymore than General MacArthur would have if he had stepped on an ant.
You're better off dreaming, I guess.
You'll never, no matter how long either of us live, be able to take me on and prevail. Given you like to at least pretend you can, it must suck to be you.
Delete or let stand, but until the next time, so long, overblown airhead and standing OS joke.
One other point....There is no ruling, ever, saying such-or-so a law is a violation of the 10th amendment alone. It takes something like Lopez saying Congress has exceeded its power on a specific law. In that, it wouldn't matter if the 10th did not exist at all. If you'll actually look before babbling, you'll find the Court precedent on the 10th says exactly what I'm saying and exactly what Madison thought. That some wanted to limit powers and thought the 10th would doesn't mean it does. It doesn't and that's why it's inert. Not all violations of Congress' powers are violation of the 10th, as it could be an overreach that neither state nor federal is permitted.
Another thing you and other yahoos miss is the dual sovereignty of The People expressed in the 10th.
I could run rings around you all day long on the 10th, Chris, and I'm not an expert. I just know way more than you, but again, that's no big deal.
The worst part of that is you're a low traffic poster so few will pop in for the show. You owe half of what you have now on my comments.
I see you didn't accept the challenge idea, but that's okay. I would have figured you a masochist if you had, and proven it if you did.
Just so you know--I, and I imagine a handful of others, read your comments when they see you pop up in the feed. This is entirely for the NASCAR effect--the crashes are interesting. I do not, however, pick you apart every time I read the logical train wrecks and orphaning of reason. I see Rutherford did arrive at the ass-ence of your support of the topic of that post, but I would have taken it much further and destroyed your logic first.
You don't get how logic is supposed to work. I'm not saying this to insult, but because it's obvious you can't make those cerebral connections required to think or argue on anything above a pedestrian level. This is true of most people, but most people avoid such discussions, they don't join them and then try to BS their way through. You puff it up with clumsily applied, but supposedly "brainy" words, but your defenses always fall back on whining and babbling about socialists.
Oh yes. I almost forgot...and crybaby claims that you're not taken seriously because you're a conservative. Like you suggesting an OS Op-Ed so boring writers with "conservative" views can be considered worthy.
Gee, that sure sounds like you want to be defended against the market forces that leave you in the remainder bin.
Are you now claiming laissez unfaire?
Actually, I figured that once you saw how blatantly unrealistic this "Prez suing himself" was you'd want to delete it pOSt haste. It's so wrong and reveals such shallow thinking and obliviousness, yet you leave it up. On that, I bow to your bravery...but really, given your reputation around here, what have you got to lose anyway?
As much as you cry, piss and moan about being unduly insulted, much of your BS relies on insulting. Sometimes you do it trying to be witty, sometimes as a substitute for the thinking you can't perform, and most often as a claim somebody is stupid, just before you say something stupid. You can't do that well either, as you don't draw the link between the insult and what was actually said. Not as bad as your fellow OS mini-mind Hardin, but just as lacking in substantial impact.
One last word of advice--that 3 Repubs save 1 democrat post?
It was boring as hell, and I had to look it over 3 times to see you were trying to write satire. If you had the gray matter, you'd have known it didn't compute. You should avoid satire.
Dumb-da-dumb-dumb-duuuuuh!
Sign me
Your Great White but Forever Swimming Free Whale.
G'day, Capn' Ahab