I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
Is it also unconstitutional to create a law requiring healthcare be given to any pedestrian hit by a cement mixer regardless of their ability to pay?
A federal law? Yes.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
“In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion,” said DeDe Church, an Austin-based employment lawyer. “Weight is not one of those protected categories.”
...
“This is discrimination plain and simple,” said Peggy Howell, public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. She said a hospital should know that lots of medical conditions lead to obesity or weight gain. “So the field of medicine is no longer an option for people of larger body size? What a waste of talent.”
I don't take health advice from fat people seriously, ever. This is a good call. Also, NAAFA sounds like something a fat dude would order 6 of. Six naffas please, hold the mayo. I'm on a diet!
It doesn't surprise me that you're in support of this ignorance at all.
I'm sorry man, I freely admit this is an irrational bias. I cannot bring myself to take health advice from an obese person seriously.
I cant really justify it, but there it is.
Well you've summed up your entire belief system more succinctly than anyone here ever could for you spool.
“In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion,” said DeDe Church, an Austin-based employment lawyer. “Weight is not one of those protected categories.”
...
“This is discrimination plain and simple,” said Peggy Howell, public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. She said a hospital should know that lots of medical conditions lead to obesity or weight gain. “So the field of medicine is no longer an option for people of larger body size? What a waste of talent.”
I don't take health advice from fat people seriously, ever. This is a good call. Also, NAAFA sounds like something a fat dude would order 6 of. Six naffas please, hold the mayo. I'm on a diet!
It doesn't surprise me that you're in support of this ignorance at all.
I'm sorry man, I freely admit this is an irrational bias. I cannot bring myself to take health advice from an obese person seriously.
I cant really justify it, but there it is.
Well you've summed up your entire belief system more succinctly than anyone here ever could for you spool.
I'm sorry you're taking it personally, man, and I get that you want to hit back.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
Is it also unconstitutional to create a law requiring healthcare be given to any pedestrian hit by a cement mixer regardless of their ability to pay?
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I hope donkey kong reads my response about total recall. I hate not knowing if someone left thinking I meant something I didn't.
not that this is exactly important in the long run, but in 2 years when DK has to decide whether or not to let me live this might come back to bite me in the ass
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
Is it also unconstitutional to create a law requiring healthcare be given to any pedestrian hit by a cement mixer regardless of their ability to pay?
A federal law? Yes.
So the EMTALA case is up soon then, yes?
Edit : Bugger. Re-read. Requirement to treat based on Medicare money acceptance. However it's highly impractical for a hospital to NOT accept medicare money, so blah.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
I'm actually thinking ACA should go down purely on the basis that its slowing down Vermont's implementation of single payer, which they signed last year. They can possibly get a waiver by 2014, if not, then its 2017. Or ACA goes down and they can start right away.
While I think its clearly Constitutional, I think I'd rather have it go down if we can have Vermont start the end of the entire for profit, primary health insurance industry tomorrow. Its a terrible Republican idea anyway.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
The argument is whether or not the affordable care act is regulation of interstate commerce or promoting general welfare, since those are both powers granted by the constitution. The problem is that if you say mandating that everyone buy health insurance is a means of regulating interstate commerce or promoting general welfare than you are potentially opening the door to infinite government authority.
I am going to put handfuls of snuff up your ass. I'll put bales of chewing tobacco under your arms and on your genitals.
Is this an example of some of that superior Norwegian porn you were talking about yesterday?
Snuff... porn?
Snuff porn is Norwegian porn?
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
ATTENTION
I NEED TO KNOW WHAT SONG IT IS HAS THESE LYRICS
can't help but feel alright
run through the day till the end of the night
the sun keeps coming up in your blue eyes
these are the best days of our lives
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
The US Constitution has some highly interpretable clauses that give the US government broad powers - one of them is the "necessary and proper" clause. There's also the interstate commerce clause and the the general welfare clause.
Taken together, these three clauses basically say that as long as Congress doesn't flagrantly violate some other part of the Constitution (such as the First Amendment), they can pass any law they want.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
well i would argue that the poor starving and dying- and the near poor living in a miserable pall of constant hunger, fear, and anxiety- isn't all that sensible
BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I WASN'T EVEN BORN IN THIS LAND OF STARS AND CHEESEBURGERS
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
That's... kinda paranoid.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Posts
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
twitch.tv/tehsloth
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
A federal law? Yes.
Well you've summed up your entire belief system more succinctly than anyone here ever could for you spool.
I'm sorry you're taking it personally, man, and I get that you want to hit back.
Oh. Yeah. Good point.
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
not that this is exactly important in the long run, but in 2 years when DK has to decide whether or not to let me live this might come back to bite me in the ass
I mean, you never know
So the EMTALA case is up soon then, yes?
Edit : Bugger. Re-read. Requirement to treat based on Medicare money acceptance. However it's highly impractical for a hospital to NOT accept medicare money, so blah.
i am going to america at you?
I DON'T KNOW, ABD,
They don't eat because they're fueled by spite.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I am going to put handfuls of snuff up your ass. I'll put bales of chewing tobacco under your arms and on your genitals.
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
what.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
You are right Mim, let me fix that for him.
Women are evil.
While I think its clearly Constitutional, I think I'd rather have it go down if we can have Vermont start the end of the entire for profit, primary health insurance industry tomorrow. Its a terrible Republican idea anyway.
:^:
Blackwater/XE/whatever they are now is like an hour away. I'm sure I could find some staff there.
Is this an example of some of that superior Norwegian porn you were talking about yesterday?
I am purposefully making this as international as I can. Snuff I assosciate with england and chewing tobacco is an american thing.
WHAT.
Snuff... porn?
The argument is whether or not the affordable care act is regulation of interstate commerce or promoting general welfare, since those are both powers granted by the constitution. The problem is that if you say mandating that everyone buy health insurance is a means of regulating interstate commerce or promoting general welfare than you are potentially opening the door to infinite government authority.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Snuff porn is Norwegian porn?
I NEED TO KNOW WHAT SONG IT IS HAS THESE LYRICS
can't help but feel alright
run through the day till the end of the night
the sun keeps coming up in your blue eyes
these are the best days of our lives
ATTENTION PLEASE HELP ME IDENTIFY THIS SONG
GIVE ME BACK MY RIB, THIEVING FEMALE!
The US Constitution has some highly interpretable clauses that give the US government broad powers - one of them is the "necessary and proper" clause. There's also the interstate commerce clause and the the general welfare clause.
Taken together, these three clauses basically say that as long as Congress doesn't flagrantly violate some other part of the Constitution (such as the First Amendment), they can pass any law they want.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's why I only date men.
You can't be trusted.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
No.
Oh and in this case I'm talking about snuff the tobacco product.
The unfortunate search terms has not helped the genre.
At least men stab you in the front.
...wait.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
well i would argue that the poor starving and dying- and the near poor living in a miserable pall of constant hunger, fear, and anxiety- isn't all that sensible
BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I WASN'T EVEN BORN IN THIS LAND OF STARS AND CHEESEBURGERS
That's... kinda paranoid.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.