Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2014, 01:23:42 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Americans, incl. large majority of Democrats, think mandate unconstitutional.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Americans, incl. large majority of Democrats, think mandate unconstitutional.  (Read 1268 times)
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« on: February 29, 2012, 01:37:10 pm »
Ignore

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx

Logged

ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32721
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2012, 01:47:41 pm »
Ignore

Americans, including large majority of Democrats, don't really know anything about constitutional law.
Logged

It seems like Lief's posts sometimes have a sexual tint to them. I've definitely seen references to spanking more than once.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38866
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2012, 02:05:31 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 29, 2012, 02:20:32 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.
Logged

TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3644
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 29, 2012, 02:28:29 pm »
Ignore

Fortunately, the vast majority of judges know that this isn't the case.
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 29, 2012, 02:28:56 pm »
Ignore

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32721
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2012, 04:11:26 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

Remember when a super-majority of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9/11?
Logged

It seems like Lief's posts sometimes have a sexual tint to them. I've definitely seen references to spanking more than once.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14884
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2012, 04:23:35 pm »
Ignore

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

I wondered about that too, although that angle doesn't get much publicity.  Still, in my layman's understanding states can, via the tenth amendment, make an argument against it.  Just because the court upheld it last year doesn't mean it will always.  Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned after a decade or so, and this can be as well.  Hopefully, it won't come to that.  South Dakota has already passed a nullification act.  Maybe other states will follow suit. 



Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38866
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2012, 04:29:48 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2012, 05:44:47 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

Remember when a super-majority of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9/11?

Ah, a different scenario.  Back then, the presidential administration and all its media allies spent several months attempting to convince the body politic that Iraq was behind 9/11.  Now, the presidential administraton and all its (more substantial) media allies have spent several years attempting to convince the body politic that the mandate is constitutional, managing to get the number who believe that to 20%, probably the same result as if they had devoted their energies to convincing the body politic that the Pope isn't Catholic.
Logged

Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2012, 06:17:00 pm »
Ignore

I also think it's hilarious that only 8% of Americans are undecided or unsure.
Logged

n/c
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4233
Belgium


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2012, 06:25:34 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?
Logged

FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 458
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2012, 06:26:45 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

I'm pretty sure if gay marriage had 72% approval, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.
Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 29, 2012, 06:27:02 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?

Polls better than socialism. Smiley
Logged

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12530


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2012, 07:01:55 pm »
Ignore

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

I wondered about that too, although that angle doesn't get much publicity.  Still, in my layman's understanding states can, via the tenth amendment, make an argument against it.  Just because the court upheld it last year doesn't mean it will always.  Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned after a decade or so, and this can be as well.  Hopefully, it won't come to that.  South Dakota has already passed a nullification act.  Maybe other states will follow suit. 

Fifty-seven years is not a decade, and nullification, unlike this mandate, is known to be unconstitutional.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
I'm JewCon in name only.
Klecly
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 922
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.61, S: 6.52

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2012, 07:09:58 pm »
Ignore

I find it funny that people on this forum believe they are experts on what's constitutional and what's not.
Logged

Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30592
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 29, 2012, 07:11:44 pm »
Ignore

Americans, including large majority of Democrats, don't really know anything about constitutional law.

Funny; I was just about to post that.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38866
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2012, 08:21:07 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

I'm pretty sure if gay marriage had 72% approval, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that gay marriage is a statement that is either true or false.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11975
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2012, 08:40:03 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?

Polls better than socialism. Smiley

Only in America. The libertarian movement here aren't even worth mentioning.
Logged

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14884
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2012, 08:50:11 pm »
Ignore

Fifty-seven years is not a decade,

Indeed.  It's somewhere between a decade and a century, I'd say, and it's probably why I said "a decade or so."  On a logarithmic scale it falls closer to a decade than a century, but this is certainly far beyond the scope of the thread and we needn't let it distract us.

and nullification, unlike this mandate, is known to be unconstitutional.

by whom?  by 72% of US voters polled randomly?  I doubt that.  But that's not a point I'm going to argue with you because I don't have the data to back that up.  What we do know is that The People recognize that they're being forced to do something by the government.  They don't like it.  They have a right not to like it, and although they might not all be lawyers, they have an inkling of idea that this bill is very, very wrong.  I'm not a lawyer either, and I could be wrong about this, but it really stinks.  And I am not alone.  Moreover, it doesn't necessarily depend upon the supreme court to do its job.  If we can install a GOP congress and president--and there's a chance, however slim, that we may be able to do this--then it won't come to that.  But if it does come to it, I"m not so sure that you can predict that the federal court can't be convinced that it is unconstitutional.  For example, many lawyers are already on the record saying that it violates the commerce clause.  I don't think that at least one wealthy opponent to the law will have trouble contracting at least one of those lawyers.  Big Brother, of course, will have its own highly-paid lawyers, but that's not always a guarantee of their success, fortunately.

Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 29, 2012, 08:59:31 pm »
Ignore

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?
Logged

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14884
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2012, 09:08:20 pm »
Ignore

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?

POssibly, but I'll admit that I was thinking that Brown was in the 50s and Plessy was in the 20s, but I wasn't quite sure of the dates so I said "a decade or so..."  Turns out that Plessy was, like, Eighteen Ninety-something, so tit's a good thing I said "or so."

The point still stands.  

And I really don't think we should get distracted by this minutiae.  I'd bet that we are all, Republicans, Democrats, LIbertarians, and Socialists, willing to stipulate that there have been some bone-headed decisions in the past, and that there will probably be some in the future.

But as far as the thread topic:  I'm not a legal expert, but to me it seems a fairly simple matter:  this law violates at least two clauses in the constitution.  Moreover, there are actually people who have graduated from law school who have said that as well.  

Even more important than any of that is the point that consigliere jmfcst made:  Let us exploit any bone-headed decision the supreme court makes regarding this case.  I'm pretty stoked about that, although it means selling ourselves out (at least a little) for a cause.  You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But in this case the cause seems worthy.

Let's see if that 72% have balls enough to step up and take one for the team.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28258
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2012, 09:29:20 pm »

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

The country's worst nightmare would be a partial overturning.  Must carry combined with the elimination of the personal mandate would destroy the individual insurance market, and yet would be so popular initially that it could not get repealed until said market was destroyed, with all the consequences thereof.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28258
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2012, 09:36:00 pm »

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?

Depends on what you mean.  There were several cases prior to Brown that showed that particular examples of "separate" were not in fact "equal" and hence not constitutional under Plessy.  It wasn't until Brown that the court found that "separate but equal" was shown by practical experience to be inherently impossible to achieve and tossed out de jure segregation.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15990


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 29, 2012, 10:22:55 pm »
Ignore

The issue is the phrase 'to buy health insurance'. To 'buy' implies something voluntary. An unconditional requirement to buy is not voluntary, so there's some cognitive dissonance, I think, people are unsure of how to conceive it. But the intent is the same as a tax. A tax takes money out of your pocket and puts it into a common pool which is then used to provide you with services out of that pool. This does the same thing. The only difference? In a tax, the government determines where the money goes precisely, whereas here, you have a great deal of freedom to determine where it goes, within the restriction that it be spent on health insurance. The government only mandates that it goes generally for a particular purpose, but not to who exactly.  Hence it is like a tax, but less intrusive.

I would urge the justices to look at the genesis / history of the individual mandate proposal to understand what it is. Originally, various proposals were put forward which would have funded health care through direct taxation. The individual mandate was proposed as a less intrusive substitution that would achieve the same ends. In other words, the genesis of the individual mandate was a tax proposal. The Gallup wording 'buy' or 'purchase' is inherently misleading because it does not fully describe what is going on here.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines