I just had to lol at this:
"Just because a couple people on the supreme court declare something to be "constitutional" does not make it so."

Actually it kind of does..

And yes I realize that that also made segregation and Jim Crow Constitutional at one point...

Technically, it also kind of doesn't. If they chose to go rouge and blatantly declare otherwise, they are human you know?

Yeah just because their interpretation of what's constitutional is what stands... doesn't mean it's the only interpretation, or the correct one... but whatever, I'm sick of the constitution fetishization anyway... fluff that old piece of paper

the north won a war so that jim could do as he wanted.

i blame the fourteenth amendment for ruining it for everybody :(


+please know i'm joking..

lol @braden. DON"T MAKE ME PRETEND TO NOT KNOW YOU ARE JOKING!!

:P

In regards to the recent obamacare:
It's my understanding that it's an "opinion" and not a "ruling", and only because the case was pre-emptively brought to court. IE, no one is currently impacted by the law, they wanted to clear things up before the law takes affect.

If you read the opinion, it says that the affordable health care act "could not" be considered under the commerce clause, or the second (I forgot which one), but "could" be considered under the taxation clause.

We're still left with several options.
* The bill technically did not originate in the House, and this is unconstitutional. Remember "No Taxation Without Representation", all taxes must originate from the House, and not the Senate. There may have to be a separate lawsuit for this.
* The bill can still be repealed by Congress.
* Taxpayers can sue once the "tax" is in affect, they have paid, and demand a "refund".
* Taxpayers, can not pay, and nothing happens to them. The bill was promised and written in such a way that it is "not a tax". So there is language that only the IRS can collect an enforce the "tax", no one else. There's also language that the IRS cannot impose levies or fines if you DON'T pay, so nothing really happens. You just carry your tax liability for this, and it's separate from all the other taxes.

a

Another option:
* Nullification in the states. States can nullify the law. The SCOTUS already said that medicaid cannot be withheld from states that do not participate.

I love the idea that people question the judgment of the Supreme Court. Yes, they are human, and yes, the Supreme Court has ended up overturning previous SCOTUS rulings, but the people on the Supreme Court are attorneys and judges who have dedicated their life to the study of the Constitution.

There's always a chance any ruling could be overturned in the future, but the idea that common citizens think they know more about the Constitution than the Justices on the S.C. is just as much nonsense as someone thinking they know more than their doctor.

On the Health Care law, I really hope this is a time when Obama and the Democrats now examine the flaws in the law and try to fix them now that the battle of constitutionality is over.

The constitution was written to be simple enough for the average person in 1787 to understand, I think we can understand it just fine as common folk in 2012.

Their ruling however does make it constitutional in the present. Without another ruling or an amendment, it will be put into effect on the individual level at the very least.

The Constitution of the United States
Article 1, Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

That's pretty plain and simple to me. And again, "No Taxation Without Representation".

The Senate does sometime (successfully) circumvent this by taking a bill that passed from the House, and changing the contents of the bill (sometimes changing the entire content of the bill). But in it's face, it goes against both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

As I've said in another thread, the USA was built on the principle that we are sovereign individuals. We, the People, retain all rights; we govern ourselves. As sovereign individuals, who have given part of our rights to the local and federal government, we cannot give them rights that we ourselves do not have.

We're supposed to be governed by the ordinary person, not an elite class.

Be careful how far you take the idea of "expert opinion consensus". It's widely used to not allow for a discussion or a marketplace of ideas.


And as with all things, get involved. Armchair politics is not enough.

Well there are historical examples of presidents losing supreme court battles and going ahead and taking action anyway. Namely certain events relating to natives.

Ultimately it is my understanding that with enough support, Congress can in fact repeal the bill or force such a situation should they be determined enough.

I've found a rather interesting article posted on FAS.org (originated by the Congressional Research Service, though) about the Origination Clause. Here's the link for the full paper if you're interested, but otherwise I'll excerpt the parts concerning the S.C. to save you the full reading:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31399.pdf

The Supreme Court uses a far narrower definition than the House when determining what has violated the Origination Clause. In addition, since the House actually has a much broader view, the S.C. rarely even considers this Clause because once a law has been passed by Congress, there's a presumption of constitutionality. The S.C. has heard cases on this and:
"occasionally ruled on Origination Clause matters,
adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its
application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary
purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for
the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose."

The report also discusses a few different cases, but from what I saw, the case that would be the one likely to be used to uphold the Health Care Law's constitutionality here would be Millard v. Roberts, where "the Court held that a bill to impose a tax on property in the District of
Columbia to raise money for the express purpose of providing railroad terminal facilities was not
a bill to raise revenue because the money raised was for a specific purpose, rather than to meet
the general expenses or obligations of the government."

So unless the S.C. were to reverse course on a precedent (which doesn't happen a whole heck of a lot), then even a law that was specifically to raise money but for a specific purpose wasn't struck down. Meanwhile, the Health Care Law is neither specifically meant to raise funds (since people who had health care wouldn't pay the tax/penalty), nor is the money that would be raised for the general budget, but simply for the purpose of covering the costs of the law.

1) While I don't doubt that may be written somewhere, I've never heard the "simple enough for the average person in 1787 to understand" idea. Where's that come from?
2) There's also 200+ years of Supreme Court rulings on the subject. Does the average person understand all of those?
3) Is it not the sole job of the Supreme Court justices and their staffs to study the original text of the Constitution? Why do you think that someone that probably doesn't have any type of degree in law, history, political science or any other related field would have as accurate and meaningful of a reading as the Chief Justice of the S.C.? I'm a literature teacher. Unless you also are, do you think you understand Shakespeare as well as I do?

People continue to mistakenly cite that the law was deemed constitutional and it wasn't. The portions of the law challenged were deemed constitutional. There are several pending lawsuits on other issues such as IPAB, physician-owned hospitals and the whole religious exemption issue.

I think Sen. Paul's point in context was more that the Court can rule that way, but they can fight for a new President and Senate to overturn the law too, which was quoted two sentences later.

Twain, the thing is a few pages long. It doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of time to read the constitution and understand its blunt language. It is not a matter of education, it is a matter of neutrality when reading the constitution. Whether I look over the same few pages for a week or 20 years, likely I won't find anything I didn't find in the first place. Shakespeare is much different than a few written pages. Anyway, Thomas Jefferson spoke to this exact subject way back when concerning how laws are written for ordinary people to understand. Personally, I hardly ever trust that some judge (or any other person) simply knows better because of education and standing in society.

CKHustler: Doesn't matter if something is short. In order to make the document relevant to today, interpretation needs to be done to determine what is the best way of utilizing the document.

To use a sacred Republican amendment, take the 2nd amendment: Does the fact that a militia has the right to have arms on behalf of the people mean that individual citizens can be armed?

Does the 4th amendment truly only protect what is on our bodies or in our houses? Or does it cover private internet accounts, cars, etc.?

From the 5th amendment, what is "just compensation?" and what isn't? What's "excessive bail" in the 8th amendment?

Or to use the example previous stated, what constitutes a "bill for raising revenue?"

The Constitution was written in a way where it was left very simple. Of this you're right. The beauty of this is that it's written in a way to interpret it based on the culture and technology of the time period.

And your attitude that education doesn't make someone understand something better screams to the right-wind anti-intellectual movement. It's certainly very possible that an expert can be wrong or can have an agenda, but most of the time experts on a topic say what they say because they understand the topic far better than the average person. Unless you have a reason to be skeptical, you should trust people who are more educated than you on a topic when you are told you're wrong (or at least research it yourself and find what the consensus of experts say).

The Supreme Court questions the judgment of the Supreme Court, ie it was a 5-4 ruling

so we're supposed to trust that they're all wise and correct and know the law better than the rest of us, when 4 of them don't even agree with the other 5 about it. and scalia/thomas are hardcore ideologue clowns

If you read Remini's "The House: The History of the House of Representatives," you would not use that example since the original intent was clearly individual ownership. =p.

blid: It's the system we have now. I'm far from a SCOTUS expert, but I'm going to guess that most decisions don't end up with an 8-1 or 9-0 vote, so there's always some reasonable dissent.

The main point is that they're the ones who get to decide. So Rand Paul or anyone else saying "Just because the SC says it's constitutional doesn't actually make it so." Well, actually, yes it does. Even if the S.C. were clearly wrong and years later they reversed themselves, the S.C. saying something is constitutional or unconstitutional is EXACTLY what determines it.

So yeah, for now at least, the ACA is constitutional. And on that note, my wife and I received a refund check from my wife's old insurance company because they weren't following the rules concerning the percentage of premiums that were used on patient care. So especially right now, I'm a fan. :)

Isn't the Constitution what determines what's constitutional? THe Court's interpretation of what's constitutional is what's constitutional only from a legal standpoint... but that's not to say their interpretation is necessarily correct, and they're certainly not infallible. I think the world would be better off without rand paul ever existing and without ayn rand too while we're at it but you can clearly see what he's saying...

Rand Paul probably makes me more ashamed of my country than GWB did. Rand is like some automated rhetoric spewing machine. Unlike his smart but loony dad, Rand has no original ideas - just bullet pointed lists handed to him by pundits.

I stand in stark contrast. Dissent and the ability to dissent are two things that make me extremely proud of my country. I don't care much for Minority Leader Pelosi's politics, but her ability to wage them and launch into tirades against the majority without fear for her life, career or family is a hallmark to our political process.

Which politicians do you think offer "original" ideas? I would love to know.

If you come with the original perspective that; we are all sovereign individuals; we retain all rights; we willfully give up some of our rights to the state, and some of our rights to the federal government; we still have checks and balances; we govern ourselves. Then the answer is pretty simple; always lean towards individual liberty.

Something I read the other day. The sovereign state is a good check/balance to an over reaching federal government. Don't like a federal law? Exert your right as a state to nullify.

Also, another interesting concept. Jurors also can judge the law and judge the facts (in some states). Returning power to the people, where it should have been in the first place.

Actually, in this day and age the words 'politician' and 'original idea' probably should never be used in the same sentence - the words could touch each other and divide the universe by zero. I hear thats a bad thing.

Power to the people? that's frankly a completely outlandish concept at this point, the power is where the money is. the people are just a bunch of powerless chumps :S

trumper: You give Pelosi more credit than I do, and I'm fairly liberal (of course, as I point out to KoH when arguing with him on GT, I'm a Midwest liberal, it's the left-wing equivalent of being a New England conservative).

lymz: Ever notice that many of the mandates put on the states aren't really requirements? They're just mandates that say "If you want money from the federal government for education, you'll run your schools in this way" or "If you want money from the federal government for highways, you'll maintain a speed limit with a reasonable range"

States still have the power to opt out of a lot of programs, but they don't. The reason? Exactly what blid said. The power is where the money is. I'm pretty sure he meant it in referring to corporations and wealthy individuals lobbying for their own interests, but it applies in the federal vs. state government level as well.

martian: When the Congress wants to overrule the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution they pass an amendment tot he Constitution.

I kinda feel no one will ever pass an amendment to the Constitution again

I was just curious about previous droughts of constitutional amendments, and there's some amusing stuff out there, but first, the answer to the question:

Between the 12th and 13th amendment, 61 years passed (1804-1865). Between the 15th and 16th, 43 years (1870-1913).

The current time since the last ratified amendment is only 20 years (although the 27th amendment is one of the more amusing ones)

Here's your fun facts from the site I got this information from:

The 13th amendment, which prohibits slavery, was ratified 130 years after it was first proposed (and ratified, for that matter) in 1995. (Obviously more of a symbolic action at this point, but still amusing)

The 27th amendment, which restricts congressional pay raises, was actually proposed at the same time as the Bill of Rights, but only 6 states ratified it back then. It finally gained ratification in 1992 as the most recent amendment.

The most recently proposed amendment is the 26th which was proposed in 1971, which ensures all citizens 18+ can vote (that's all this site says, I believe to be more specific, it outlawed such things as poll taxes, but I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up since I don't really care right now).

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

i live in dc and we dont evne have represenation and thats never gonna get amended

Hey, you guys just got electoral votes like 50 years ago. Let's calm down and think about this a little longer.

Maybe in 50 more years, we'll give you guys a Congressman.

havent you heard? only if utah gets one more too, otherwise representation is "partisan"

but if it happened it'd be unconstitutional, it requires an amendment that will never happen.

I like the info Twain, thanks

I feel no sympathy from someone who used to live in DC (I now live just south and work in DC). For starters, you have more than all the US territories becauses you have 3 electoral votes.

Next, I would point out residents of Ward 8 continue to elect the super-racist Marion Barry. If that's not embarassing enough, two council members have resigned and the Mayor's under an embarassing scandal of receiving nearly a $700,000 shadow campaign from a prominent businessman who had a $300 mil city contract.

Where I will grant you an argument is making the case that the old federal district layed out in maps versus DC proper today for voting rights. The people in the old federal district should know better. It was intended to prevent them from extending undue influence upon the country. And it was never unclear. It is a choice to live there.

Rand Paul? I never realized how sad that name is. He's the worst combination of his crazy father and Ayn Rand, a heroin-addicted narcissist.

1) Ron Paul somehow managed to live long enough to resemble a leprechaun but never spent 15 minutes googling "fraudulent lending" to learn why his gold stance is pure stupidity. Switching the backing of a currency to gold does absolutely nothing to stop booms and busts, which have always been [and will always be] the result of fraudulent lending. This is fraudulent lending: I have a Honda, now please give me a $700k loan using that as collateral.
2) In Ayn Rand's world, heroes exhibit all the characteristics of deeply disturbed individuals: unable to relate to others, unable to feel emotions, maniacally focused on their own glorification and success, and filled with self-pity because nobody appreciates their superiority. And those are the good guys.

The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. You mean Mississippi decided to join the ratification in 1995. However to your point of proving backwardness, they were also the first to ratify the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol. The history behind ratifying, not ratifying and timing is fairly interesting.