|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: Conservatives and the Constitution |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) announced yesterday that they would invoke an unusual Senate procedure � a �constitutional point of order� � to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the �Democrat health care takeover bill� is unconstitutional.
Significantly, neither DeMint nor Ensign cite a single judge, justice or reputable constitutional scholar who believes that health reform is unconstitutional. Instead, they rely entirely on a study by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a radical �tenther� organization which has endorsed the view that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the federal minimum wage, and the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), rebuts DeMint and Ensign�s constitutional claim by citing numerous constitutional scholars � including right-wing law professor Jonathan Adler � who all agree that health reform is constitutional. Moreover, as ThinkProgress has previously explained, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia disagrees with the tenther attack on health reform.
Sadly, DeMint and Ensign�s attempt to change the meaning of the Constitution by invoking a constitutional point of order is an all too familiar tactic. As CQ reports, Republicans often invoke this procedure to claim that bills they don�t like must therefore be unconstitutional. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently invoked the procedure to claim that a $200,000 federal grant to an Omaha, Neb. museum somehow violated the constitution. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) used it to protest a bill to enfranchise D.C. residents.
Raising a constitutional point of order is also the first step to invoking the so-called �nuclear option,� an elaborate set of procedural maneuvers Republicans dreamed up while they were still in the majority, that effectively declare the filibuster unconstitutional. Indeed, despite the fact that Ensign and DeMint now claim the right to filibuster anything the majority does, both senators believed the filibuster must be unconstitutional when it was being used against them. Ensign claimed that the Senate has a �constitutional obligation� to give President Bush�s most radical judicial nominees an �up-or-down� vote, and DeMint had even harsher words for Democratic senators who opposed majority rule:
| Quote: |
The obstructionists should go to the Senate floor, make their arguments, allow senators to draw their conclusions on her nomination and then let us vote. If their arguments are so strong, they should be able to convince a majority to agree. Otherwise, they are simply smearing the integrity of a highly respected jurist to score political points against the president, at the expense of vandalizing the Constitution. . . .
There is a reason Americans elected George W. Bush and a large Republican majority in Congress. The majority of Americans trusted our judgment on judicial nominees. There is also a reason Democrats are in the minority. Most Americans did not trust them to make these decisions. |
Now that DeMint and Ensign are in the minority, however, it simply must be the case that the Constitution protects minority obstructionism�and that bills opposed by the minority are unconstitutional. |
What's with the Conservative tendency to go around declaring things unconstitutional just because they don't like them? I'm reminded of the guy on this forum who insisted income tax was unconstitutional despite it being a part of the Constitution. This example is even worse than that, because they're now actively and feverently doing things they once insisted were tantamount to "vandalizing the Constitution."
I'm becoming more and more convinced that anyone with a visible passion for the Constitution is actually a fraud merely trying to hide behind what he or she considers to be a rhetorically impenetrable shield. After all, if you keep disagreeing with them after they've invoked the Constitution, they can simply dismiss you as unamerican. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: Conservatives and the Constitution |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm becoming more and more convinced that anyone with a visible passion for the Constitution is actually a fraud merely trying to hide behind what he or she considers to be a rhetorically impenetrable shield. |
OK, you can (fittingly) start with the media. How many times have you heard their 1st Amendment arguement being invoked? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marla, from ZH (and a T14/biglaw type) makes the argument that the bill suffers from "serious constitutional issues":
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cbo-scores-own-goal
| Quote: |
Interestingly, the law does not actually regulate an activity- a key component of the Commerce Clause authority which the bill, of necessity, must invoke. Instead, it regulates an anti-activity. The act of not buying health insurance. It is easy to make light of this distinction. It is also quite foolish. This sort of "negative regulation" is incredibly dangerous. Moreover, the law itself mandates that individuals enter into a required contractual relationship with a private company. Even State automobile insurance requirements permit individuals to post a cash bond to meet their financial responsibility requirements (i.e. to self-insure). No such exception exists in the present legislation. In fact, given the price control and "community rating" aspects of the bill, it is entirely obvious that the statute would require many individuals (particularly healthy 20somethings like your humble author) to enter into overpriced insurance contracts to subsidize other citizens.
In short, Federal mandates of this kind not only have no precedent, they would seem to fly in the face of the most basic notions of freedom of contract. |
I don't know if a law that requires individuals to buy a product from a private firm violates the American constitution. I missed that day in my Canadian government and laws class. But, it does seem like breathtakingly stupid policy.
Also, it will cost 2.1trillion and not 848billion. Which seems high. Just a tad high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I don't know if a law that requires individuals to buy a product from a private firm violates the American constitution. I missed that day in my Canadian government and laws class. But, it does seem like breathtakingly stupid policy. |
It assuredly is a breathtakingly stupid policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That pretty much defines classical conservatism as opposed to progressives.
Nothing should ever be changed, everything is GREAT and IDEAL just exactly as it is RIGHT NOW...(yeah, right).
Progressives...what we have right now could be better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
That pretty much defines classical conservatism as opposed to progressives.
Nothing should ever be changed, everything is GREAT and IDEAL just exactly as it is RIGHT NOW...(yeah, right).
Progressives...what we have right now could be better. |
Conservatives understand the limits of government. We don't think government can put a puppy under every xmas tree without screwing up millions of lives along the way. It's a realism thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
That pretty much defines classical conservatism as opposed to progressives.
Nothing should ever be changed, everything is GREAT and IDEAL just exactly as it is RIGHT NOW...(yeah, right).
Progressives...what we have right now could be better. |
Conservatives understand the limits of government. We don't think government can put a puppy under every xmas tree without screwing up millions of lives along the way. It's a realism thing. |
You just described libertarians.
Libertarians seem to allow Conservative Republicans to speak on their behalf. But they shouldn't, as they really have very little in common...Ron Paul being laughed at the stage should demonstrate how far their true political cores differentiate.
Republicans/Conservatives seem to be of the more restrictrive freedom kinds...which in turn means a much larger government with more oversight over it's people, which costs money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
