American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;415307]The entire Bush presidency was not only a prelude to the grand finale, but lackluster from an economic perspective concerning the metrics I listed below. No, it was not just 6 months, but 8 years plus 2 years under Obama for a total of 10 years of effects from failed conservative policies. And no, it was not all Bush's fault, those are words you keep repeating. It was all those (including some Dems) who supported conservative ideology on taxation and deregulation.[/QUOTE]Would you please provide a credible argument that Bush was / is a conservative?

Wasn't there some guy who was blathering all sorts of right-wing drivel about the fact that Obamacare was unconstitutional, long before it was even passed? Too bad Elena Kagan will need to recuse herself when this case hits the supremes. Guess BHO should have thought that one through before nominating that incompetent hack.

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise.

20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history. [/QUOTE][quote]A USA district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla, ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void. [/quote]Who to believe?

We all knew the House repeal of ObamaCare would be stuck in the Senate, but not before the Dems have their feet held to the fire on a vote which will come back to haunt them in November 2012.

We also all knew the legal challenges were going to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court, which with its current members will spell the end of ObamaCare due to the over reach of the Fed using the Commerce Clause.

One thing strikes me as odd about the bill in the first place, usually they are written so if one section is found to be unconstitutional the remainder is left in force, not so in this case. No matter which portion of the law is found to be unconstitutional the entire law will be scraped.

I saw a small blurb about this story on I think it was page 16 of the newspaper today.

Apparently the lawsuit was filed by a Republican in a Florida district which ensured the case would be heard by a Republican appointee (Vinson). What a coincidence!

[QUOTE=Punter 127;415316]Who to believe?[/QUOTE]

For me, I trust the way my cock points to, that way, it is always an easy decision.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415334]I saw a small blurb about this story on I think it was page 16 of the newspaper today.

Apparently the lawsuit was filed by a Republican in a Florida district which ensured the case would be heard by a Republican appointee (Vinson). What a coincidence![/QUOTE]Awesome. I knew that there would be benefits to being a conservative.

Why is it that when a judge upholds the Constitution, the Left has to attack him as personally motivated to pervert the law to his political agenda? Reagan appointed Vinson, so hopefully, he is in fact a Conservative and not just a republican.

Dopple, the question of Severability is that to which you allude. In most contracts you include a specific clause stating severability so that in the event any particular aspect of the contract is found to be unenforceable or outside the law, the rest of the contract remains in effect. When severability is not expressly stated and agreed to, one can argue that the entire contract should be viewed as one and if any part of it is found to be invalid, the whole thing is invalid. In this case, the fact that the judge found part of the law unconstitutional makes the whole act invalid. Therefore, the federal government must stand down all efforts to implement this flaming piece of shit, lest it is violating the law of the land and a valid judgment by a federal judge. To continue to implement this is to violate the finding of the court and any of the complainants may seek injunctive relief from Vinson's court.

I am quite happy to see that Judge Vinson, agrees with me on the unconstitutionality of this law. I find it kind of funny that Obama, an alleged Constitutional Scholar (which he clearly is not nor has he ever been), hung his presidency on something that regular joes knew was unconstitutional from the start.

Makes Esten's position that Obamacare didn't go far enough even more laughable.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415334]I saw a small blurb about this story on I think it was page 16 of the newspaper today.

Apparently the lawsuit was filed by a Republican in a Florida district which ensured the case would be heard by a Republican appointee (Vinson). What a coincidence! [/QUOTE]Yes, and what's particularly aggravating about this is the sure and certain knowledge that no liberal would ever resort to such a strategy themselves.

Even these scumbags have to agree with my initial reaction to the 1099 requirement. They are whistling pass the graveyard on why it was even in there in at all. Because they want to know every last thing about your private business so that they can ex-appropriate more of your formerly-constitutionally-protected private property.

These f-ckers should burn in hell. Their selfish and misguided efforts are aimed at destroying the greatest civilization known to man.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415345]Makes Esten's position that Obamacare didn't go far enough even more laughable.[/QUOTE]Mongers-

Actually, my sentiment is exactly this, that the current incarnation of "obamacare" in fact DID NOT go even close to far enough (which is why I am opposed to it) , as all it did was further regulate and complicate the current privately-run and profit-driven healthcare system. The only answer to the health care problem is to create a publicly-run health care system (just as every other civilized nation on earth has) staffed by publicly educated doctors and staff working on a a public sector wage."Health Care Service Academies" if you will, similar to the current Military Service Academies, which provide a free medical school education in exchange for ten (or more) years working for a public sector wage at a public hospital. Private, for profit healthcare care can continue to exist and thrive parallel to a public system. The program can be funded by completely eliminating Medicare and Medicaid and require that those who would previously be treated by those entitlement programs must use the public system instead.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415345]Dopple, the question of Severability is that to which you allude. In most contracts you include a specific clause stating severability so that in the event any particular aspect of the contract is found to be unenforceable or outside the law, the rest of the contract remains in effect. When severability is not expressly stated and agreed to, one can argue that the entire contract should be viewed as one and if any part of it is found to be invalid, the whole thing is invalid. In this case, the fact that the judge found part of the law unconstitutional makes the whole act invalid. Therefore, the federal government must stand down all efforts to implement this flaming piece of shit, lest it is violating the law of the land and a valid judgment by a federal judge. To continue to implement this is to violate the finding of the court and any of the complainants may seek injunctive relief from Vinson's court.[/QUOTE]Not really. Lawyers and legislators include severability clauses more as a "reminder" of what courts already are supposed to do. If a court severs a provision from a contract or legislation, a court is supposed to try to enforce the remaining, valid provisions, unless the stricken portion is so essential that the contract's or legislation's purpose would be frustrated without the stricken piece. Regardless of whether a severability clause exists, courts are supposed to do this. The opposite could also be included, a [i]non-severability[/i] Clause, stating that if any provision or a particular provision is held invalid, then the entire thing fails.

The absence of a severability clause is significant [i]evidence[/i] Here for two reasons. First, one existed in an earlier draft, so its removal likely was not an accident. Second, there are a number of outside the record statements about the necessity of the individual mandate, further supporting the idea that the Act fails without the individual mandate. Had a severability clause existed, these outside the record statements likely would have been entitled to no weight.

But, absence of a severability clause alone does not mean that if [i]any[/i] Provision of Obamacare is stricken then the entire morass goes by the wayside. There is much misguided commentary on this right now.

Rock- I agree with you on the merits of a publicly-run health care system, however it is also important to evaluate PPACA on where it puts us. I say it puts us in a better position to move towards a public option or single-payer. It moves the bar. A repeal of PPACA would mean the loss of all the improvements, and back to square one with the fate of reform now more in the hands of Republicans. Repeal doesn't make sense, because Repubs don't want the government involved.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415348]Senate strikes part of Obamacare. Oops, looks like WW is right again [/QUOTE]We all read about that in "Who Cares" Magazine.

Guess you missed the other headline today "Health-law repeal fails in Senate".

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415349]"obamacare" in fact DID NOT go even close to far enough (which is why I am opposed to it) [/quote]Rockharders and Esten revile the Constitution.

[quote=]The only answer to the health care problem is to create a publicly-run health care system (just as every other civilized nation on earth has) staffed by publicly educated doctors and staff working on a a public sector wage."Health Care Service Academies" if you will, similar to the current Military Service Academies, which provide a free medical school education in exchange for ten (or more) years working for a public sector wage at a public hospital. Private, for profit healthcare care can continue to exist and thrive parallel to a public system.[/quote]How are you going to pay for this utopian situation? In the military academy example, the contribute ten years of their lives at sub-market rates in exchange for the medical school education. How do you propose that these public sector docs pay for their educations?

[quote=]The program can be funded by completely eliminating Medicare and Medicaid and require that those who would previously be treated by those entitlement programs must use the public system instead.[/quote]Errr, ahhh, duh. What are medicare and medicaid? Rock, stick to making pizza that isn't terrible (when you're 5, 000 miles from home).

[quote=]Suerte, [/quote]Whatever

[QUOTE=Esten;415351]Rock- I agree with you on the merits of a publicly-run health care system,[/quote]Translation: "Rock, I agree that we should suspend the constitution when it inteferes with our agenda. Afterall, it is just some thing a bunch of dead white guys wrote on some paper like 50 years ago.

[quote=]however it is also important to evaluate PPACA on where it puts us. [/quote]Considering that the Act was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, I'd say it puts you back towards the beginning. Thanks to Vison's ruling, it isn't a law, it's unconstitutional.

[quote=]I say it puts us in a better position to move towards a public option or single-payer.[/quote]I'd say having the sports section in hand puts you in a better position for your morning constitutional [err. Unconstitutional in your case]

[quote=]It moves the bar. A repeal of PPACA would mean the loss of all the improvements, and back to square one with the fate of reform now more in the hands of Republicans.[/quote]Please state one improvement. Just one. I know you won't (because there aren't any).

[quote=]Repeal doesn't make sense, because Repubs don't want the government involved.[/quote]It makes a ton of sense if you love freedom and the constitution.

[quote=]We all read about that in "Who Cares" Magazine.[/quote]Didn't see it. Must be another bankrupt liberal rag.

[quote=]Guess you missed the other headline today "Health-law repeal fails in Senate".[/QUOTE]Guess you missed the other, other headline. 22 Dem senators up for reelection in 2012.

Stan, no offense, but I see it slightly differently.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415350]Not really. Lawyers and legislators include severability clauses more as a "reminder" of what courts already are supposed to do. If a court severs a provision from a contract or legislation, a court is supposed to try to enforce the remaining, valid provisions, unless the stricken portion is so essential that the contract's or legislation's purpose would be frustrated without the stricken piece. Regardless of whether a severability clause exists, courts are supposed to do this. The opposite could also be included, a [i]non-severability[/i] Clause, stating that if any provision or a particular provision is held invalid, then the entire thing fails.[/quote]Over the past 20 years, I have entered into hundreds of contracts. Not one has excluded a nonseverabilty clause. There is a reason for that: to make certain that the interpretive body is put on notice that the contract is meant to be interpreted as severable.

[quote=]The absence of a severability clause is significant [i]evidence[/i] Here for two reasons. First, one existed in an earlier draft, so its removal likely was not an accident. Second, there are a number of outside the record statements about the necessity of the individual mandate, further supporting the idea that the Act fails without the individual mandate. Had a severability clause existed, these outside the record statements likely would have been entitled to no weight.[/quote]Here you raise a good point. If it existed in previous versions, it was removed for specific reasons. Most likely, the removal of the severability clause would be to make sure that the unconstitutional forced payments would not be severed from the ridiculous increased expenditures called for by the law. Chances are, some Clintonista thought that they could parse socialized medicine to circumvent the constitution.

[quote=]But, absence of a severability clause alone does not mean that if [i]any[/i] Provision of Obamacare is stricken then the entire morass goes by the wayside. There is much misguided commentary on this right now.[/QUOTE]Absence of a return address or improperly named counsel is grounds for argument. If you leave out one of the most commonly cited clauses in contract law, one would logically assume that the parties deliberately excluded the concept and therefore, it should not apply.