Is ‘Obamacare’ a sign of the Apocalypse?

In the normal fashion, a political thread that started on recent polling which shows Dems in better position – this week – to maintain control of Congress than a couple of months past, wandered off into the deep jungle of ‘states rights’ and the “socialist/fascist, Muslim thug” tendencies of the President and the debate on the originalist interpretation of the US Constitution. Funny how that happens online.

by (a reliably conservative voice) » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:27 am

It is called amendments. When something such as Obamacare clearly goes outside the lines of what the Constitution has provided, using the Commerce Clause to defend the rationale, you amend the Constitution. You do not simply say life has changed and make our most important foundation for government null and void. Right now it is a twisted form in where as interpretation is a JOKE….fitting a square peg in a round hole and stating it works well enough for me!

States having the ultimate powers keep us from an oppressive govt.and secures our freedoms It strengthens competition which has been the driving force to our sound and profitable govt. If a state raises taxes too high or becomes too restrictive in regulations…folks (and businesses) have the option, easily, to move to another state and eventually that state will have to adjust to survive. The expansion of federal powers take away those freedoms.

Oh the fun we have with the clueless.

When something such as Obamacare clearly goes outside the lines of what the Constitution has provided

There is no ‘clearly’ about it. Just do a bit of teh Google and you will find multiple interpretations by Constitutional attorneys and scholars arguing this very point. It is only for the dogmatic that anything is ever ‘clearly’ allowed. Well, what about torture – that’s clearly unConstitutional. Why yes it is but then all you have to do if you want to torture someone is to have one of your lawyers reinterpret the actions. (see Torture Memos)

Right now it is a twisted form in where as interpretation is a JOKE….

What do you know, we can agree on something! Do another Google on the standing of corporations in the early days of the nation. You will find that corporations were severely restricted in their actions – for example, they could only do one thing; i.e., if they built carriages, they could not also make barrels. If they were a shipbuilder, they could not also own a railroad. In fact, corporations had to re apply for a license to operate every year – so what, you ask, they have to do the same today – ah, but they also had to specify exactly what the business was to do – and there was the whole operating in different states thing that the Commerce Clause was supposed to regulate but it took a century’s worth of SCOTUS cases to bring some order to the problem and we still have conflicts. Corporations like to take advantage of lax regulation in one state by setting up corporate ‘headquarters’ in such a state and then carrying out their business across the nation, even in states where their actions, if not illegal, would be more tightly restricted – of course the bosses seldom live or operate from HQ, they prefer the life style in the restrictive states.

Off topic a bit but still about corporations in 18th, early 19th C. America and the incredible gulf between that time and ours is the academic study: The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: The Turnpike Companies of Early America by Univ of California Professor Daniel Klein.

But it was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (also) in 1886 that gave a corporation the same rights as a living individual. The result of that misguided interpretation was this year’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Wiki commentary) which gave corporations (and unions) the right to spend as much money as they want on elections. You think government is controlled by business now – you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

States having the ultimate powers keep us from an oppressive govt.

ROTFLMAO!!

And you seriously think that a state government can’t be more ‘oppressive’ than the feds? Even your local county or town administration could be more oppressive and without federal oversight, the individual would have far fewer opportunities to fight back. Remember the ‘good ol’ days’ of the pre-Civil Rights era?

If a state raises taxes too high or becomes too restrictive in regulations…folks (and businesses) have the option, easily, to move to another state

uh huh – You know that whole ‘states rights’ thing? Guess what, in your dream world, the other state would have the right to keep you out if they didn’t like your politics or your economic ideas or the colour of your skin or your religion.

The “expansion of federal powers” can be a problem but it has also allowed many Americans better lives – school desegregation, voting rights, civil rights, control of the food we eat and the drugs we take, child labour laws – the list goes on and on. A lack of federal control is one of the primary causes of the present financial crises.

Think a bit more and quit paying attention to those babbling away on only one side of the political fence. People on both sides have some good ideas. At this time, those on the right are simply refusing to moderate their views – the entire goal of the right at this time is to bring down the President, no matter the harm done to the nation as a whole. The Republicans in Congress know this – that is why some of them are saying “Don’t put out any agenda, don’t discuss our ideas – just say NO!” Anyone who thinks President Obama is a socialist and/or a radical leftist is clueless. By any reasonable standards, not judging against the political spectrum in other developed nations, but only using historical American standards – the President is a moderate and somewhat to the right of centre.

When one political group can say “No to unemployment benefits – because they are too expensive” and at the same time say that the Bush-era tax cuts shouldn’t be counted when attempting to control the deficit – even though they are several times more costly than the extension of unemployment benefits – it is operating in an alternate universe as far as I can tell.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s