Health Reform Bill- constitutional or not?

Patt..
Did you miss the part there where I said that I appreciated your effort?

I really think that you need to step back and unwind a bit. In the grand scheme of things even the health care bill means nothing. Relax and have some fun woman!!

It means a great deal. I personally believe, for far too long, the conservatives of this nation have done the 'relax, it's no biggie, the world will still turn' and in doing so we ended up with s*** like this legislation. Enough - NO MORE!

I have no intention of either letting it slide or or 'relaxing' on the issue. For me, it's an off year election. That means I am busy making sure that things like this get all the attention it deserves.

In doing so, I help change just WHO sits in those seats in DC.

Like it or don't, I'm not stopping. You can - fine - one less for me to mess with.

I'm not stopping Patt.
I'm just trying really REALLY hard to tone down the rhetoric, and see if we can actually have some constructive debate.

A very long time ago in one of these threads, I even stated that I wasn't really fond of this bill, but that was lost in the screaming and forgotten the moment that I said it, because there must have been something else in that same post that somebody (not necessarily you) could take out of context, and use to call me a liberal.

And in the grand scheme of my life, it's not even a blip. I have family, friends, work, bills, love, gardening, home repairs, dinners, wedding rings, vacations, arguments, laughter, and a thousand other things in my life that are far more important to me.

I commend you for your unwavering position, and your obsession with all things political. I just have many many things in my life that are more important..

(But notice that I did include "argument" in my list, do don't expect me to disappear).

As I said - to stay or to go - debate or no - that's up to you. I am however to the end with my ability to tolerate your calling me a liar when the truth emerges and I find that you've not been reading the links I've given but have just been playing devil's advocate for s***s and giggles.

How utterly disgusting is that? Not to mention rude on a scale larger than I could ever could have imagined you capable of.

The truth from my perspective is that I find you an interesting guy - God knows why, but I do. But, these past few days you've called me a liar, attempted to ridicule me, made personal attacks and tried to wrangle other posters in on your scheme.

None of those things I find endearing. Yet, here I sit trying like hell to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, once again, when another issue of credibility comes up, you decide that you would rather cast doubts about my voracity rather than actually view the evidence given proving my statement.

That sir, is beneath any good man. At the moment, I'm completely disgusted with your childish antics. Will I survive the moment - oh hell yes - but, will I have to badger you to be sure YOU are authentic in the future - I'm afraid so. You've proven that you'd rather play school yard games rather than to address an important issue in a straightforward manner.

Good that you got that off your chest.
I've found many of your tactics in this debate "less than honorable" as well, which is one of the reasons that I started poking at you.

We both know that the world is full of stupid people, and I could start a thread titled "Zebras are allergic to dandilions" with a picture of a dead zebra, and many of them would accept it as fact without a second thought.

Politicians, and the media know this as well, and they play it for all it's worth. Notice I was non partisan there, because you will have to agree that nearly all of them are working the american public on an emotional level, for their own gain.

I like to think of myself as an advocate for the terminally stupid, by constantly asking the "stupid" questions, like "Do you have a link", and then pointing out that the link was partisan, or stating (rarely) that it was pretty balanced. Sometimes this gets annoying, but if the people here are going to learn anything about what this really means, we have to talk about actual non-partisan facts, starting with what the bill does and does not contains.

I would hazard a guess that 95% of the people on this site don't have a shread of a clue.

Also, I think discussion of how this bill was passed is moot, for two reasons. First, I doubt that there has ever been a bill before congress that didn't have some sleazy dealings behind it somewhere, at least by someones standards. Second, it's in the past, and it can not be undone.

What can happen, is that we can debate the contents of the bill, discuss what we like, and why. And also discuss what we don't like, and what we would do to change it. We may not agree, but It would be nice, we both might learn a little, and many people here might learn a lot.

How about it?

Process is NOT moot - and this is why - When Obama was elected one of his platforms was to change the BS deals and glad handing that was taking place. I looked forward to both that and the transparency he said he'd bring to DC. Not only that - his assertion that he'd oust the lobbyists.

What did I get in return? NOT what he promised but a process by which there wasn't even a thought to need to do the payoffs for votes in any secret way - they were open and as in your face as anything I'd ever seen. All the while, his administration and the Democratic leadership is barking at Wall Street as the 'fat cats'. The disconnect between reality and rhetoric is what will rid us of the congress that sits today. It's well deserved. They are corrupt and must leave so that we remain who we were always meant to be - a free people who's congress works for them and not themselves or a four year guy in the white house.

HOW a bill is crafted is as important as why it is crafted. The ends do NOT justify the means. That has been a standing problem with this administration which can only result in the political assertion of where the thought actually comes from - Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals - Socialism.

If you think, for one small second, that I personally will or could just 'relax' and let that happen to this nation or to her people, then you have no idea about what conservative political people do in this nation or why we do it. There is a constitution and I'll be damned before I see that given over to anyone because it's the 21st century.

It is THE document of a people that has stood the longest on this planet and in doing so is the framework that will allow us to continue. Any attempt to change that, especially by subjugating the people governed is tantamount to treason in my eyes. I will not and cannot stand idle while that happens.

I find it completely amusing that you have come to the conclusion that we should debate the measures of the bill in a rational and equitable way but only came to that decision at post number 323 in this thread - the smallest of the three we've bantered back and forth in.

I've been doing that all along. I would think it's time for you to become serious and stop your fooling around. This issue isn't something to be taken lightly. I've told you that before. I've told you it is indeed on the scale of the Civil Rights movement. I've told you it has that impact.

You're how bout it should be offered to your nearest mirror and not to me.

Alright. I see that this is going nowhere fast.

At least I can say that I tried.
Have a good life Patt.

I will - but read my post again - this time use MY eyes and not yours. I've not been ugly - I have however been determined.

That is how this debate will be between now and November - determined.

There is no need for me to re-read your last post.
You are indeed determined.

Three views on the chances of the health care reform bill being ruled unconstitutional. A liberal, moderate and conservative take.

It looks like the states will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on frivolous lawsuits to no avail. But, finally, based on these people it's something that people from both sides of the political spectrum agree on.

Conservative View
Liberal View
Moderate View with bias to the left

I could not find a moderate view with a bias toward the right. If anyone else can, please feel free to link to it.
Thanks.

Here's my take:

Conservative - an opinion without case law. Never addresses the class requirement under the commerce clause. Says it never gets past the district courts - I cannot agree.

Liberal - attacks a Barnett assertion, but doesn't address the class requirement. Also asserts that the Louisiana purchase is NOT in the final reconciliation bill - it still is, as are others. He states on that alone, pieces of the law will be found to be unconstitutional. If that happens, then those states will appeal as it undercuts their funding for the mandates imposed on the states. Finally, congressional intent is indeed taken up in Supreme Court decisions. The intent was to circumvent the will of the people without their consent. Of course, that's my opinion, but I think that will fly based on the representative government we live under per the basis of three branches of government. I can hardly see the Supreme Court negating one branch of our government.

Independent - the final line should give you the idea that he thinks that this particular argument will be upheld...

To call Printz an exercise in brazen conservative judicial activism far understates the case. Nonetheless, it provides a reed of an argument for the GOP State AG's challenge to the state exchanges in the health bill.