Skip to main content

View Diary: Keith Olbermann Is Short (on the Constitution) (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm Not an Interstate Commerce (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CA Berkeley WV, erush1345

    While the commerce clause has been very broadly interpreted (too broadly, frankly), it doesn't apply to me. If they want to mandate that an insurance company be willing to sell me insurance, that's within the scope. But telling me to buy insurance is not.

    As for how they plan to implement this, I went into that in the diary. You might want to re-read that part.

    In any case, do you really want this tied up in court for years, possibly to only be thrown out after all that?

    •  which is probably why Senate Finance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking, blueoasis, dstein12

      backed way far away from the criminal and civil penalties under IRS Code, the consequence is that there are no consequences of not joining the pool. And everyone knows since they are unwilling to drop the insurance model they only way costs come down is by spreading risk. Tax me and let me see a doctor, yes. Tax me so that WellPoint had a better company Christmas party, not so much.

      Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices--François-Marie Arouet

      by CA Berkeley WV on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:25:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm comfortable with the legal brains in WH (0+ / 0-)

      They are smart guys and gals.  They know what is kosher and what is not, Obama included.  They aren't going to do anything that is clearly on the wrong side of the law.  Any authority that they will need will be derived from the Lopez ruling, and it seems to me that there is ample room to craft a bill that satisfies the criteria.

      One of the things that (sane) legislators do when they write legislation is try to craft it in such a way that it is legal.  I can assure you that there is no bill that is going to be passed that is blatantly unconstitutional.  All of the committees and all of the Senators/Reps have legal staff that will guide them appropriately.

      Just because they discussed a "mandate" on Countdown does not mean that it is as they said it was.

      And to your statement of "[a]s for how they plan to implement this, I went into that in the diary. You might want to re-read that part", I see nothing in your diary that quotes any legislation or cites to anything authoritative.  Just as you and I see things differently with respect to the purported constitutionality of an alleged mandate, there can be a difference of opinion of what the bill (when it gets written, which hasn't happened yet) will say.

      For example, this article says that the "mandate" is a financial penalty, not a criminal penalty.

      •  I'm Not Buying It (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, the WH employs Rahm Emanuel. I think this completely decimates your argument that they have great brains there.

        Second, Congress passed and the President signed the MCA, which is completely at odds with the plain text of the Constitution over habeas corpus. They try, of course, to get it all to be legally square, but the SCOTUS regularly throws out things that they get wrong. And, historically, they simply aren't beyond writing something they know is unconstitutional (or know at least is questionable) and trying to balls it through the courts.

        In short, I'm not comfortable with the brains in the White House and I think their eyes may be too big for their bellies. They may want mandates and put in something that they think will pass muster, but that doesn't guarantee it will. And, in any case, the fact that they backed off criminal penalties, and watered them down at that, suggests to me that they already know they are on shaky ground.

        For what? To implement a corporate favor?

        And, why are we defending it? If this goes unchallenged, what's to stop further mandates to buy things? I can make a solid case that you ought to be buying all kinds of things just to benefit society (and that are for your own good, to boot). Why, if I wanted to end the recession, I could mandate that you buy a certain number of dollars of products every month. Clearly this is necessary to get the economy going again. Aren't you a patriot???

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site