Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama might have a Supreme Court majority on the health care law (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're ignoring the N&P Clause (0+ / 0-)

    Don't know why you are ignoring it, but you are.

    •  All right, Armando, let's apply the N&P Clause (0+ / 0-)

      and I think you'll have to agree that it is limited.

      1. Congress has the power to raise an army.

      2. A shortage of young people may limit the number of people who can serve.

      3. By application of the N&P Clause to the express power to raise an army, Congress can thus mandate that women have at least three children.

      There.  Now I'm not ignoring the N&P Clause.  Distinguish away.

      In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:06:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just stupid (0+ / 0-)

        There is an express prohibition in the Constitution that prohibits such a law, or perhaps you are unfamiliar with the liberty interest in the Constitution.

        BTW, ever heard of the draft?

        •  Yep, I've heard of the draft (0+ / 0-)

          Have you heard that it doesn't mandate childbearing?

          Where is "the express provision" regarding number of children in the Constitution?  Are reproductive rights now beyond judicial dispute?  Why didn't anyone tell me?  I would have had a party!

          In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:29:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You really don't understand (0+ / 0-)

            There is an express PROHIBITION of government action that impinges on the liberty interests of individuals.

            What's funny is how easily you slip into Lochnerian language.

            I wonder how many other "progressives" are playing your game.

            It's a wonder you are not a Paulista.

            •  Where we differ (and what I've been saying here (0+ / 0-)

              for two years now) is that I don't think that regulation of inactivity is settled law.  I think that, in this Supreme Court, it's a close case and I would not be surprised to see your side win out, but I don't think that it would require overturning any decisions for PPACA's mandate to be found unconstitutional.

              (I'm not a Paulista, in relevant respect, because I'm not rooting for it to be unconstitutional.  I'm offering a dispassionate analysis, my preferences aside.)

              Now, what is the "express PROHIBITION of government action that impinges on the liberty interests of individuals" that would prevent the government, under your theory, from mandating that people floss every day.  If it's "express," it should be easy to find -- and not too vague.

              In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

              by Seneca Doane on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 08:41:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site