The Cooch thinks he's going to sue America if health care passes - what is it with this butthole?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Virginia Attorney General, Ken "The Cooch" Cuccinelli, subject of this current thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=555361) about his attempt to force Virginia universities to discriminate against homos, is threatening to sue the federal government (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=555361) if the health care bill passes. His specific grounds are not really spelled out, but his letter to Pelosi suggests that he thinks there's something unconstitutional about reconciliation. As I said in the thread title, what is it with this butthole? He;s like Michelle Bachmann, but he has some actaul power. The state of Virginia is not actually going to go along with this nutbag lawasuit, is it?

This guy is fast becoming a national joke. I think Palin has a challenger for the teabagger throne.

[Rand Rover]

Both your links go to the GD thread.

Also, this:

his attempt to force Virginia universities to discriminate against homos

is complete bubkis. Say what you want about what he's doing (and I don't like it either), but he most definitely is not attempting to force Virginia universities to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Also, I'm sure you have reached your opinion on the merits of the potential lawsuit based on a careful analysis of the legal issues. No, wait, the opposite of that.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Both your links go to the GD thread.
Sorry. Here's the other link.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html#more

[Squink]

Virginia Attorney General, Ken "The Cooch" Cuccinelli...Is an also ran:
Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states)
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.Like Idaho spuds, it's hard to top Idaho nuts.

[sleeping]

Say what you want about what he's doing (and I don't like it either), but he most definitely is not attempting to force Virginia universities to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

No, but he is really going out of his way to encourage them to do so.

Also, I'm sure you have reached your opinion on the merits of the potential lawsuit based on a careful analysis of the legal issues. No, wait, the opposite of that.


Self-executing rule ("deem and pass") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_rule):

From the 95th-98th Congresses (1977-1984) the self-executing rule was used eight times, 20 times under Speaker O’Neill in the 99th Congress and 18 times under Speaker Wright in the 100th Congress. Under Speaker Gingrich there were 38 self-executing rules in the 104th Congress and 52 in the 105th Congress (1995-1998). Under Speaker Dennis Hastert there were 40 self-executing rules in the 106th Congress, 42 in the 107th Congress and 30 in the 108th Congress (1999-2007).[5]


Like their bullshit complaints about reconciliation (and lies about it being the nuclear option), this just another hysterical effusion over nothing.

[The Second Stone]

He sounds like a right arsehole. The federal government is empowered to do things for the general welfare. Whether this can require an individual to buy health insurance strikes me as a far constitutional reach. That the federal government can have voluntary programs to allow people to buy health insurance from the federal government is a slam dunk. And the feds can regulate any commerce that goes across state lines. I expect that the US Supreme Court will strike down an individual mandate. Usually legislation has anticipated that other provisions are not effected. I would hope that in the 2400 pages of gibberish that they have such saving provisions.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Also, I'm sure you have reached your opinion on the merits of the potential lawsuit based on a careful analysis of the legal issues. No, wait, the opposite of that.
He hasn't filed the suit, or spelled out exactly what his grounds are, so it's kind of hard to analyze them. If he thinks it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, he's wrong.

[Rand Rover]

No, but he is really going out of his way to encourage them to do so.

What is your evidence for this proposition? He just said that state colleges could not include sexual orientation etc. in their discrimination policies. He isn't encouraging any state college to actually discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, etc.

[Piker]

Also, I'm sure you have reached your opinion on the merits of the potential lawsuit based on a careful analysis of the legal issues. No, wait, the opposite of that.

Are you kidding? As far as I can tell, the potential lawsuit is "I will sue over the unconstitutional use of reconciliation". Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate. The lawsuit will not only get laughed out of court, I can guarantee you that any lawyer that files such a complaint will be subject to sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the state system equivalent, depending on the forum. Guarantee.

[Rand Rover]

He sounds like a right arsehole. The federal government is empowered to do things for the general welfare. Whether this can require an individual to buy health insurance strikes me as a far constitutional reach. That the federal government can have voluntary programs to allow people to buy health insurance from the federal government is a slam dunk. And the feds can regulate any commerce that goes across state lines. I expect that the US Supreme Court will strike down an individual mandate. Usually legislation has anticipated that other provisions are not effected. I would hope that in the 2400 pages of gibberish that they have such saving provisions.

Wow, this little essay would cause you to fail any 8th grade civics course. And it's interesting how you get the limits of federal power wrong in both directions (i.e., one part incorrectly overstates it while another part incorrectly understates it).

Here's some help:

1. The federal government is NOT empowered to do things for the general welfare.

2. The federal government can do more than just regulate commerce that goes across state lines. The interstate commerce clause has been interpreted to allow the federal government to pass any regulation that would affect interstate commerce. In the most famous case on this, the Court held that the federal government could regulation how much wheat a farmer grows for his own consumption because it affects how much wheat goes into interstate commerce.

[Rand Rover]

He hasn't filed the suit, or spelled out exactly what his grounds are, so it's kind of hard to analyze them.

Exactly. That's the point. You don't know what the lawsuit is yet, and you've already decided it's a stupid lawsuit. I guess I really should come to expect such idiocy from you, but for some reason I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If he thinks it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, he's wrong.

sez u

[Fear Itself]

1. The federal government is NOT empowered to do things for the general welfare.You just failed constitutional law (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei):
Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...Now go make me a cherry coke.

[Piker]

To split the difference, Congress only has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, while the general power to legislate is usually confined by the interstate commerce clause.

Of course, I would love to hear why Rand Rover thinks health insurance isn't an issue that implicates interstate commerce.

[Captain Amazing]

Cuccinelli has also advocated Virginia cutting funding to Planned Parenthood (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/mcdonnell-bolling-cuccinelli-react-planned-parenthood-push)and opened up the possibility of someone making the argument in federal courts that a law signed by Obama is unconstitutional because Obama's not a citizen. (http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2010/03/cooch-gone-wild.html)

[elucidator]

I think Dio started this whole thread because he likes typing "The Cooch". Perv.

[curlcoat]

He hasn't filed the suit, or spelled out exactly what his grounds are, so it's kind of hard to analyze them. If he thinks it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, he's wrong.

Really? The government can force me to spend money on something that they think I need? Scary. :(

[boytyperanma]

Really? The government can force me to spend money on something that they think I need? Scary. :(

Whens the last time you got to choose whether your tax dollars are spent on tanks or not?

[Piker]

Really? The government can force me to spend money on something that they think I need? Scary. :(

Yes. It's called "taxes". Don't be scared.

[Fear Itself]

Really? The government can force me to spend money on something that they think I need? Since when is this news? If this were not settled law, you would not be collecting SSDI benefits.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wow, this little essay would cause you to fail any 8th grade civics course. And it's interesting how you get the limits of federal power wrong in both directions (i.e., one part incorrectly overstates it while another part incorrectly understates it).

Here's some help:

1. The federal government is NOT empowered to do things for the general welfare.
Show me where the Constitution says it can't.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think Dio started this whole thread because he likes typing "The Cooch". Perv.
That is only like 60% of the reason.


Ok, 80%.

[curlcoat]

Whens the last time you got to choose whether your tax dollars are spent on tanks or not?

Yes. It's called "taxes". Don't be scared.

Since when is this news? If this were not settled law, you would not be collecting SSDI benefits.

None of these things are the same as the government forcing me to buy their health insurance. I'm aware that I'll be paying for it thru my taxes, but I do hope that I will not also be forced to actually buy a policy as well.

[The Second Stone]

Wow, this little essay would cause you to fail any 8th grade civics course. And it's interesting how you get the limits of federal power wrong in both directions (i.e., one part incorrectly overstates it while another part incorrectly understates it).

Here's some help:

1. The federal government is NOT empowered to do things for the general welfare.

2. The federal government can do more than just regulate commerce that goes across state lines. The interstate commerce clause has been interpreted to allow the federal government to pass any regulation that would affect interstate commerce. In the most famous case on this, the Court held that the federal government could regulation how much wheat a farmer grows for his own consumption because it affects how much wheat goes into interstate commerce.

Stick to tax law counselor. First of all, the federal constitution gives general welfare power in at least two places. Second, I never said the feds couldn't regulate anything affecting interstate commerce there is a long line of cases saying they can.

The three constitutional attacks I see as possible are the mandate on individuals, reconciliation and "pass and deem" which I hadn't even heard of until this last week. Reconciliation is the weakest of those arguments in my humble opinion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Exactly. That's the point. You don't know what the lawsuit is yet, and you've already decided it's a stupid lawsuit.
I'm going out on a limb. From what he's indicated, he has no grievance.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Really? The government can force me to spend money on something that they think I need? Scary. :(
Of course. Show me where the Constitution say it can't. You already have to buy auto insurance.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

None of these things are the same as the government forcing me to buy their health insurance. I'm aware that I'll be paying for it thru my taxes, but I do hope that I will not also be forced to actually buy a policy as well.
Do you drive a car?

[Tinkertoy]

Is an also ran:
Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states)
Like Idaho spuds, it's hard to top Idaho nuts.

According to the AARP it will cost us over a billion in federal funds, hundreds of jobs, millions more to fight in court and we'll lose the fight anyway. Too bad I will not be around to see it because I lost my insurance, my paceer/defibrillator is dying and I don't have upwords of one hundred thousand dollars to replace it. I've told my hubby to send the sactimious asshole who introducted that bill my ashes.

[Tinkertoy]

Do you drive a car?

The guy who wrote ours fucked it up so bad that now Idahoans won't be required to carry liability insurance either without a lawsuit.

[curlcoat]

Of course. Show me where the Constitution say it can't. You already have to buy auto insurance.

Last I checked, that isn't true - you can also put up a bond. Plus, you are only required to cover what you might do to others, not what you might do to yourself. Again, unless things have changed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The impeccable partisan pedigree of "deem and Pass" (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/17/ornstein/index.html)

Republicans have used "Deem and Pass" more than 100 times since 1994.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Last I checked, that isn't true - you can also put up a bond. Plus, you are only required to cover what you might do to others, not what you might do to yourself.
A couple of irrelevant distinctions without any Constitutional significance. Sorry, but the Constitutution doesn't prevent the federal government from forcing you to buy health insurance, and the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn't forbid it from doing. This angle is a complete non-starter until you can show what Constitutional right you think is being violated (here's a hint: It's none).

[The Second Stone]

Of course. Show me where the Constitution say it can't. You already have to buy auto insurance.

Yes, but it is the state government that requires automobile insurance. The federal government is a government of limited powers that are enumerated in the federal constitution.

[The Second Stone]

and the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn't forbid it from doing.

WTF? Cite?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes, but it is the state government that requires automobile insurance. The federal government is a government of limited powers that are enumerated in the federal constitution.
No it isn't, but this is a common misconception.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

WTF? Cite?
The Consitution. If it's not unconstitutinal, it's Constitutional.

[The Second Stone]

Thank you. I'll have to remember that. It is very enlightening. Like Fox News.

[elucidator]

Headlines Obama Rebukes The Cooch!

Entertainment news: Michele Obama and Dr. Phil, special 4 hour emergency Oprah marathon...

[Piker]

None of these things are the same as the government forcing me to buy their health insurance. I'm aware that I'll be paying for it thru my taxes, but I do hope that I will not also be forced to actually buy a policy as well.

This is frustrating, because you

a) recognize that the Constitution give the federal government the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and

b) acknowledge that the way the proposed individual mandate will be enforced is through a tax imposed on those without insurance.

Yet you still, in a very imprecise and unclear way, express a worry that this may be unconstitutional. How?

[Lobohan]

What is your evidence for this proposition? He just said that state colleges could not include sexual orientation etc. in their discrimination policies. He isn't encouraging any state college to actually discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, etc.Exactly. And passing a law that says it is specifically legally okay to rape your daughters doesn't encourage anyone to do that. :rolleyes:

You're a fucking idiot.

[Rumor_Watkins]

This is frustrating, because you

a) recognize that the Constitution give the federal government the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and

b) acknowledge that the way the proposed individual mandate will be enforced is through a tax imposed on those without insurance.

Yet you still, in a very imprecise and unclear way, express a worry that this may be unconstitutional. How?

this is curlcoat. she thinks that helping indigent people with healthcare is impermissible government welfare, but sitting on her ass and doing her double-chin exercises while she collects SSDI is merely her recovery of an insurance program she paid for.

[magellan01]

Of course. Show me where the Constitution say it can't. You already have to buy auto insurance.

There's a HUGE difference, though. You don't have to buy auto insurance until you chose to buy a car. Don't want to pay it, don't buy a car. No problem.

[Lobohan]

There's a HUGE difference, though. You don't have to buy auto insurance until you chose to buy a car. Don't want to pay it, don't buy a car. No problem.You don't want to pay for health insurance? Just never become sick or get into an accident. No problem.

You're also a fucking idiot. Jesus, they're everywhere. :D

[magellan01]

You don't want to pay for health insurance? Just never become sick or get into an accident. No problem.

You're also a fucking idiot. Jesus, they're everywhere. :D

Hey, it's Chucklehead! Disagree and you're an idiot. Simple as that. Look, Chucklehead, if you see something wrong with what I wrote, feel free to point it out and counter it.

Hmmm, I guess if there's nothing wrong with with what I wrote, given your need to come off as imbecilic as a jack-in-the-box, you're free to comment on what I didn't write. As you did.

:rolleyes: Good ole Chucklehead.

[ToeJam]

Man... it's so weird hearing my Uncle tell me stories of how he went to high school/college with a dude that he and their freinds used to call "The Cooch" and now to see that apparently he's become the AG of my state.
With a nickname like The Cooch, I'd expect him to be a cooler laid back dude!

[Lobohan]

Hey, it's Chucklehead! Disagree and you're an idiot. Simple as that. Look, Chucklehead, if you see something wrong with what I wrote, feel free to point it out and counter it.

Hmmm, I guess if there's nothing wrong with with what I wrote, given your need to come off as imbecilic as a jack-in-the-box, you're free to comment on what I didn't write. As you did.

:rolleyes: Good ole Chucklehead.Disagreements are fine. You however aren't able to think worth a shit. You have proclaimed that there are big differences in that you chose to drive, and as such you take on the costs of driving when you do.

However, you do not choose to get sick. Getting sick is a part of the human condition and everyone will need healthcare at some point. So, since you have chosen to live, you need health care. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see this.

So, how about you defend your stupid fucking position?

[Miller]

Exactly. And passing a law that says it is specifically legally okay to rape your daughters doesn't encourage anyone to do that. :rolleyes:

You're a fucking idiot.

Can I ban people for bad analogies? Is that a thing I can do?

I think I should totally be able to do that.

[Beware of Doug]

With a nickname like The Cooch, I'd expect him to be a cooler laid back dude!I'd at least expect him not to be a butthole.

Just slightly to the front of one.

[elucidator]

Can I ban people for bad analogies? Is that a thing I can do?

I think I should totally be able to do that.

Eventual Result:

Your direct line to one of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a total dipstick.

[Lobohan]

Can I ban people for bad analogies? Is that a thing I can do?

I think I should totally be able to do that.I'm all for it. Since my analogy makes perfect sense. :D

He's saying that removing the rules against discrimination against homosexuals is in no way encouraging the discrimination against homosexuals.

I'm saying that removing specifically the rules against something does encourage people to do it.

Removing the rules against smoking pot would encourage people to smoke it.
Removing the rules against driving over 65 mph would encourage people to do so.
Removing the rules against rape for a specific person would encourage rapists to seek them out.

Removing the rules against discriminating against homosexuals would encourage those that want to discriminate against them to do so.

Do you disagree with what I've said there?

[Miller]

That's not what made it a bad analogy.

[magellan01]

You have proclaimed that there are big differences in that you chose to drive, and as such you take on the costs of driving when you do.

You're wrong already. I said "there's a huge difference", singular. And there is.

not [/I]choose to get sick. Getting sick is a part of the human condition and everyone will need healthcare at some point. So, since you have chosen to live, you need health care. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see this.

So, how about you defend your stupid fucking position?

I already did defend it. You are simply not forced to pay for auto insurance. Period. Fact. That was the ONLY point I made. try rereading the post, you twit. You seem to agree with that even. You then raise a counter-point that, valid as I think it is, does not vitiate the point I made. The fact that you don't realize this is further evidence that you aren't too well suited to this whole debate board thing. That and the childish, shitty, petulant attitude that you display anytime someone disagrees with you.

[Piker]

Supporters of health insurance reform should probably abandon the analogy to auto insurance. Magellan01 has a point, people are not forced to drive, therefore making auto insurance an optional expense.

Of course, because the health insurance individual mandate would work like every other tax administered by the federal government, its a perfectly constitutional manifestation of Congress's power to tax and spent for the general welfare.

[Lobohan]

You're wrong already. I said "there's a huge difference", singular. And there is.

I already did defend it. You are simply not forced to pay for auto insurance. Period. Fact. That was the ONLY point I made. try rereading the post, you twit. You seem to agree with that even. You then raise a counter-point that, valid as I think it is, does not vitiate the point I made. The fact that you don't realize this is further evidence that you aren't too well suited to this whole debate board thing. That and the childish, shitty, petulant attitude that you display anytime someone disagrees with you.Once again, you miss the point. They don't force you to get auto insurance unless you drive. They also don't force you to get health insurance unless you're alive.

Not everyone drives, but everyone is alive, for awhile at least. So auto insurance is a good analogue.

As for my attitude, disagree with me all you want, but at least do it for logical reasons.

[Piker]

Just to make my point:

Person A earns $160,000 in income, but recently purchased a home, and receives a $7,500 tax deduction. Person B earns identical income in the same year, but did not purchase a home, thus, all things being equal, will pay more in federal income taxes than Person A.

And if the health care bill passes?

Person A earns $160,000 in income, and is enrolled in a health insurance plan. Person B earns identical income in the same year, but decided not to purchase health insurance. All things being equal, Person B will pay more in income taxes than Person A.

The individual mandate works just like every other tax.

[Lobohan]

That's not what made it a bad analogy.Ah, bad as in evil. Well this is the pit.

[magellan01]

Once again, you miss the point. They don't force you to get auto insurance unless you drive. They also don't force you to get health insurance unless you're alive.

Nope. The former allows one to avoid the tax. The latter doesn't. Simple. Why you cannot grant this simple point (which does not settle the HC debate) is baffling, if not entertaining. Try rereading my original post—AGAIN. The only point I was making is that arguing for the individual mandate portion of the HC plan by comparing it to auto insurance is a bad analogy. One is not like the other.

But, please, by all means, continue to do so.

[The Second Stone]

Supporters of health insurance reform should probably abandon the analogy to auto insurance. Magellan01 has a point, people are not forced to drive, therefore making auto insurance an optional expense.

Of course, because the health insurance individual mandate would work like every other tax administered by the federal government, its a perfectly constitutional manifestation of Congress's power to tax and spent for the general welfare.

All analogies become false at some point of extension. That is why some people don't use them at all in arguments, it is an illustration of something else that is similar in many ways but not all that will help the listener to understand the point. I don't think that the government should force us to buy auto insurance, but I'm not moving to Somalia over it. Same with health care.

[wolf_meister]

Not to change the topic from health insurance or analogies but this Cuccinelli guy is quite a butthole (to use Diogenes the Cynic's vernacular).
Seems he just might be a "birther" too.
http://crooksandliars.com/josh-glasstetter/meet-virginia-attorney-general-ke

And being a conservative he is definitely and absolutely opposed to gun control.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ken_Cuccinelli
He received the NRA endorsement for his 2009 campaign.
Gee it's nice to see that the Virginia Tech "fracas" of 2007 didn't taint his opinion about the 2nd Amendment.

[KarlGauss]

I know this is the Pit and all, but that's still no reason not "to fight ignorance", so . . .

. . . can anyone tell me (in terms a six-year-old can understand) what "deem and pass" aka the "self-executing rule" actually means. I checked the Wiki page, but didn't find it particularly helpful. And an example would be nice, too.

And, as I said, this is the pit, so a hearty, but non-partisan, 'fuck you!' to all.

Thanks!

[Rand Rover]

Of course, I would love to hear why Rand Rover thinks health insurance isn't an issue that implicates interstate commerce.

Huh? Why would you think that I think that?

[Rand Rover]

the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn't forbid it from doing.
Wow. This is simply not true. In fact, the oposite is the case--the federal government can do only what the constitution says it can do. Certain of its powers have (unfortunately IMHO) been construed so broadly that effectively it can do almost anything unless the constitution forbids it, but how you stated it is simply not a correct statement of constitutional law.

[Rand Rover]

Lobo, you are a fucking idiot, and obviously so.

You said that the Cooch is encouraging discrimination against homos. You then moved the goalpost by arguing that changing the law so that homos are not protected encourages discrimination against them. Both are wrong for different reasons.

First, the Cooch apparently believes that a college can put a group on the list of protected groups only if that group is on the list passed by the state legislature. Therefore, his opinion is based on the law, not any desire to encourage dscrimination. His opinion would presumably be the same if a college tried to put extra-terrestrials on their list.

Second, the Cooch's opinion only impacts colleges that want to include homos as a protected class. Do you really think that these xolleges are likely to now actually discriminate against homos since they can't be a protected class? Your examples of changing laws that encourage behavior all assume that people would want to engage in that behavior in the first place--these colleges have provided the strongest evidence possible that they don't want to engage in that behavior.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes it is. Whatever is not unconstitutional is Constitutional.

[boytyperanma]

Second, the Cooch's opinion only impacts colleges.

Actually prior to the opinion piece he sent to the colleges, he worked with the new governor to rescind the executive order that was in place to prevent discrimination for all state positions. They replaced it with one that specifically did not include gays. While he is not specifically discriminating against gays it is pretty clear he does not want anyone punished for doing so. He is fighting hard to make sure those who want to put up 'gays need not apply' signs can do so freely and legally.

The guy is a douche but go on defending him he seems like your type.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Lobo, you are a fucking idiot, and obviously so.

You said that the Cooch is encouraging discrimination against homos. You then moved the goalpost by arguing that changing the law so that homos are not protected encourages discrimination against them. Both are wrong for different reasons.

First, the Cooch apparently believes that a college can put a group on the list of protected groups only if that group is on the list passed by the state legislature. Therefore, his opinion is based on the law, not any desire to encourage dscrimination. His opinion would presumably be the same if a college tried to put extra-terrestrials on their list.

Second, the Cooch's opinion only impacts colleges that want to include homos as a protected class. Do you really think that these xolleges are likely to now actually discriminate against homos since they can't be a protected class? Your examples of changing laws that encourage behavior all assume that people would want to engage in that behavior in the first place--these colleges have provided the strongest evidence possible that they don't want to engage in that behavior.
1. Cooch is wrong on the law. Universities do have the power to set their own discrimination policies under the umbrella granted to them to set their own policied regarding employment, safety and discipline. The Governor has tacitly acknowledged this by telling the universities in question to ignore Cooch's edict and continue with business as usual.

2. Telling universities they are not allowed to stop discrimination is the same as saying they have to allow it. The institutions themselves may not discriminate (but there would be nothing stopping them in Cooch's ideal world, least of all the Virginia Attorney General), but Cooch is also saying that they do not have the power to stop students from doing it. Cooch thinks schools would be violating the law to prevent individual students or student organizations from discriminating against or harrassing GLBT students.

[Shodan]

Yes it is. Whatever is not unconstitutional is Constitutional.Actually, it is exactly the opposite.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.IOW, the federal government may not do anything at all, unless the Constitution explicitly says so.

Of course, you are an idiot, so you will deny it (without evidence).

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.
The "opposite" is a restatement of the exact same thing.

Let's put it another way. Whatever is not unconstitutional is not unconstitutional. Is that easier to follow?
IOW, the federal government may not do anything at all, unless the Constitution explicitly says so.
This is typical right wing fantasy, but it's horseshit.

If you guys are really consistent about this, though, then you'll have to agree that the 2nd Amendment is not an incorporated right and that states have a right to ban anything they want.

[Zeriel]

The "opposite" is a restatement of the exact same thing.

Let's put it another way. Whatever is not unconstitutional is not unconstitutional. Is that easier to follow?

This is typical right wing fantasy, but it's horseshit.

If you guys are really consistent about this, though, then you'll have to agree that the 2nd Amendment is not an incorporated right and that states have a right to ban anything they want.

Uh, as a pretty left-wing kinda guy, the Tenth Amendment pretty much DOES mean exactly what Shodan says--the powers of the Federal Government are limited to those expressly mentioned.

The fact that the interstate commerce clause has been consistently held to be an essentially blank check for the Federal government to do whatever the hell it wants doesn't change the bare facts of the matter.

[Nars Glinley]

However, you do not choose to get sick. Getting sick is a part of the human condition and everyone will need healthcare at some point. So, since you have chosen to live, you need health care. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see this.

Needing health care at some point is not the same as needing health care insurance.

[elucidator]

So what do you say when tickling a yuppie scum baby?

"Gucci, Gucci, Gucci!"

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week, and there ain't shit you can do about it....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Uh, as a pretty left-wing kinda guy, the Tenth Amendment pretty much DOES mean exactly what Shodan says--the powers of the Federal Government are limited to those expressly mentioned.

The fact that the interstate commerce clause has been consistently held to be an essentially blank check for the Federal government to do whatever the hell it wants doesn't change the bare facts of the matter.
I don't see how the 10th Amendment is applicable here. Yes, the 10th Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, but this health care plan does not violate that restriction.

[BigT]

<nevermind>

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Needing health care at some point is not the same as needing health care insurance.
That's like saying that you don't need auto liability insurance unless you get in a crash.

These distinctions are meaningless anyway. It's been well established that the federal government can do things like this, and any attempted lawsuits are just grandstanding political theater.

[SteveG1]

Man... it's so weird hearing my Uncle tell me stories of how he went to high school/college with a dude that he and their freinds used to call "The Cooch" and now to see that apparently he's become the AG of my state.
With a nickname like The Cooch, I'd expect him to be a cooler laid back dude!
I know. Someone called The Cooch, should be the cool guy with the mint 57 Chevy or tricked out GTO.

[Lobohan]

Needing health care at some point is not the same as needing health care insurance.True. But what happens now is if you need health care and don't have insurance you pass the cost on to society at a substantial markup.

Say Dude with No Insurance gets t-boned in an intersection and his lung is punctured. He doesn't have insurance. So the half million dollars it costs to put his insides right... where does that come from?

He declares bankruptcy, loses his house, and people with insurance end up paying it.

So it is sensible to try and get everyone with insurance. Because Dude with No Insurance, whoever he is can get a tumor, or in an accident at any time.

[Zeriel]

I don't see how the 10th Amendment is applicable here. Yes, the 10th Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, but this health care plan does not violate that restriction.

I agree, it's irrelevant to the actual debate--the commerce clause and general welfare clauses together make a perfectly valid Constitutional reasoning for the Federal Government's ability to mandate universal health care.

I'm just trying to gently correct your incorrect statement from post 31 ("the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn't forbid it from doing.") which is, simply, flat-out wrong BECAUSE of the 10th, which pretty much has universally been held to expressly forbid the federal government from doing anything not covered in the constitution.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I.... agree with Rand Rover. To an extent. Of course, it's pretty fucking obvious that Cuccinelli is operating on entirely partisan grounds here, not legal principle, so fuck him.

[Rand Rover]

I agree with Zeriel.

Dio, it's really sad that you don't grasp the fundamental concept of enumerated powers. It is one of the main reasons for having a constitution in the first place and, really, engaging in that whole Revolutionary War business in the first place.

[Rand Rover]

I.... agree with Rand Rover.
It only hurts the first time.

[Really Not All That Bright]

This is the second time, and the pain is worse.

[ElvisL1ves]

1. The federal government is NOT empowered to do things for the general welfare.Do you wish to keep up the pretense of being a lawyer?

[John Mace]

Can I ban people for bad analogies? Is that a thing I can do?

I think I should totally be able to do that.
I think so, too.

[ElvisL1ves]

. . . can anyone tell me (in terms a six-year-old can understand) what "deem and pass" aka the "self-executing rule" actually means.
It's a parliamentary procedure to pass two pieces of legislation with a single vote. One is the bill that already passed the Senate, and will go to the President for signing if it passes the House. It will be "deemed to have passed" if the House, in the same vote, passes the reconciliation bill (the "sidecar"), which will address the issues the House has with the Senate bill. The sidecar will still have to be passed by the Senate, separately, before the President can sign it too.

It keeps the Senate from killing the bill it already passed by preventing any changes that would subject it to a revote. Or, more precisely, it keeps the Senate Republicans from killing it via filibuster.

[Bricker]

I agree, it's irrelevant to the actual debate--the commerce clause and general welfare clauses together make a perfectly valid Constitutional reasoning for the Federal Government's ability to mandate universal health care.

I'm just trying to gently correct your incorrect statement from post 31 ("the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn't forbid it from doing.") which is, simply, flat-out wrong BECAUSE of the 10th, which pretty much has universally been held to expressly forbid the federal government from doing anything not covered in the constitution.

Quoted for complete agreement.

I think it's unwise, but there's no reasonable debate that UHC with a purchase mandate would be constitutional. It would be.

And Dio is flat-out wrong. The federal government has limited, enumerated powers; the states have plenary police power. It was understood before the Bill of Rights; the Tenth made it official.

The question about incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states is a valid one. There's no court case (yet) that incorporates the Second against the states. And while we might argue from analogy ("The First is incorporated, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth are incorporated, so why not the Second?") the fact is that hasn't been definitively settled.

Even Heller did not do so, since it dealt with DC, not a state.

It's a very good bet that Macdonald v. Chicago, this year's follow-on to Heller, will incorporate the Second.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And when it does, we better not hear any more whining about enumerated powers. You could say the same thing about federal drug laws as well.

[Bricker]

And when it does, we better not hear any more whining about enumerated powers. You could say the same thing about federal drug laws as well.

No, incorporating amendments against the states does not destroy the concept of enumerated powers. Enumerated powers means that the Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, and it has no powers apart from that.

The Constitution, and the laws made by Congress under the powers the Constitution gives them, are the supreme law of the land, a fact specifically defined in the Constitution. Incorporation doesn't expand the powers of the federal government, since it is based on the Fourteenth Amendment's statement that no state can deny anyone the protections of the law. The Constitution itself, in other words, is the basis for the doctrine of incorporation.

[Rand Rover]

Do you wish to keep up the pretense of being a lawyer?

Do you wish to keep up the pretense of not being a fucking moron?

The US federal government can tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. But it cannot just enact some new program (ie, "do things") because of a belief that it will somehow help the general welfare. It can only enact a program if it has the power to do so (eg, under the commerce clause).

[ElvisL1ves]

Of course it can. :rolleyes:

Go do your homework, kid.

[Hey Hey Paula]

None of these things are the same as the government forcing me to buy their health insurance. I'm aware that I'll be paying for it thru my taxes, but I do hope that I will not also be forced to actually buy a policy as well.

Curlcoat, you're already on Medicare (or will soon be Medicare-eligible), because you're on SSDI. You don't have to worry about how to get health coverage and how to pay for it, you already get it from the government (or will soon), paid for by my taxes. (You're welcome.)

[Bricker]

The US federal government can tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. But it cannot just enact some new program (ie, "do things") because of a belief that it will somehow help the general welfare. It can only enact a program if it has the power to do so (eg, under the commerce clause).

Correct. Otherwise, the phrase and the limitation of power would be meaningless, and would authorize the federal government to do anything. I'm not aware of any challenge to federal power that was successfully defended on the grounds of "general welfare." Indeed, in US v. Lopez, the government was forbidden from enforcing a law limiting handguns near schools (the "Gun Free Schoolzones Act of 1990"). If there were a "general welfare" clause that permitted the federal government to make any law as long as it promoted the general welfare, the Gun Free Schoolzones Act of 1990 would still exist.

Sweeping federal governmental power is usually justified under the Commerce Clause -- the wheat farmer case you mentioned earlier, Wickard v. Filburn, is a classic in this regard, as is Gonzales v. Raich, the modern-day case allowing the feds to criminalize marijuana even when states permit its use for medicinal purposes.

[Rand Rover]

Of course it can. :rolleyes:

Go do your homework, kid.

Wow. So rare to have ignorance presented on this forum in such a pure form. You and Dio are really providing a service here.

Care to support your argument? You may want to read Lopez first, that should show you the error in your thinking.

[DanBlather]

When did the Right get to be such a bunch of whiny babies: "pass something I don't like and I'll sue you". Sounds just like a 10 year-old. Why do you righties take these guys seriously? They use a rule for decades, then when the other side uses it they cry foul. Is this really who you want to represent you? A bunch of whiny, lieing, and misinformed people?

[Nars Glinley]

That's like saying that you don't need auto liability insurance unless you get in a crash.
I believe that a better insurance analogy would be home owner's insurance. If my house burns down, I'm going to have to live somewhere but the federal government doesn't seem to care about that and IMHO, they shouldn't. Why is health insurance different? Auto liability insurance is obviously different in that it protects the other driver. States typically don't require comprehensive automotive insurance.

These distinctions are meaningless anyway. It's been well established that the federal government can do things like this, and any attempted lawsuits are just grandstanding political theater.
Possibly. Can you provide an example of the Federal government requiring all people to purchase something from a third party? I can't think of any. The commerce clause gives power to regulate interstate commerce but is regulation the same as requiring?

[DanBlather]

It's a parliamentary procedure to pass two pieces of legislation with a single vote. One is the bill that already passed the Senate, and will go to the President for signing if it passes the House. It will be "deemed to have passed" if the House, in the same vote, passes the reconciliation bill (the "sidecar"), which will address the issues the House has with the Senate bill. The sidecar will still have to be passed by the Senate, separately, before the President can sign it too.

It keeps the Senate from killing the bill it already passed by preventing any changes that would subject it to a revote. Or, more precisely, it keeps the Senate Republicans from killing it via filibuster.Here is the real problem. In order to pass the changes to the bill agreed upon by both houses, they first have to pass the original Senate bill. That bill contains provisions that many Representatives do not like; that is why they have made changes. Once the original bill passes, the amendments to it will be passed. The Democrats are afraid that their constituents will be lied to by the Republicans saying that they "voted for" the provisions that they actually oppose, even though the bill was immediately amended.

It's basically saying that I approve of the bill if these changes are made to it. Makes perfect sense.

[Rand Rover]

When did the Right get to be such a bunch of whiny babies: "pass something I don't like and I'll sue you". Sounds just like a 10 year-old. Why do you righties take these guys seriously? They use a rule for decades, then when the other side uses it they cry foul. Is this really who you want to represent you? A bunch of whiny, lieing, and misinformed people?

The attorney general of Virginia doesn't represent anybody.

Also, I haven't seen any righty in this thread or on this board supporting the proposed lawsuit.

[elucidator]

The attorney general of Virginia doesn't represent anybody...
[snotty, pedantic snort of derision] But of course he does, he represents the Commonwealth of Virginia. He stands up in court and somebody says "Hearsay, hearsay, representing the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Hon. Virgil T. Snodgrass, Attorney General...." etc.

...Also, I haven't seen any righty in this thread or on this board supporting the proposed lawsuit.

Good.

[DanBlather]

The attorney general of Virginia doesn't represent anybody. It's an elected position

Also, I haven't seen any righty in this thread or on this board supporting the proposed lawsuit.Limbaugh and Beck haven't prepared their talking points yet, it's too early for conservatives to know what side to take.

[Rand Rover]

Good.

I'm sure that represents an exercise of your judgement on the legal merits of the lawsuit . . .


Luci, what do you think of the issue of enumerated powers? Do you think the US federal government can do anything it wants that would advance the general welfare, or do you think it can do only those things that the Constitution says it can do?

[Rand Rover]

Limbaugh and Beck haven't prepared their talking points yet, it's too early for conservatives to know what side to take.

Right, when righties all say the same things, it's because they got "talking points" from somewhere, but when lefties all say the same things, it's because they are all intelligent individuals that individually came to the same conclusion.

Now go see how the Daily Kos or Huffington Post says you should respond to that.

[sleeping]

What is your evidence for this proposition? He just said that state colleges could not include sexual orientation etc. in their discrimination policies. He isn't encouraging any state college to actually discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, etc.

Yes, he is. Even if they already overturned that rule--and they have no good reason to do so--why go around promoting it?

[elucidator]

...Luci, what do you think of the issue of enumerated powers? Do you think the US federal government can do anything it wants that would advance the general welfare, or do you think it can do only those things that the Constitution says it can do?...

I think we make it up as we go along, and have been from Day One. I think the Constitution was written by intelligent men of good will who didn't trust each other further than they could be tossed. I think it is a structure of ambiguities, umbras, penumbras. Luckily, we have a Supreme Court to certify what it says, as they were empowered by the Constitution to do.

It is absurd for a twenty-first century nation to overrule anything it may require due to the opinions of eighteenth century men who hadn't the least clue as to the world we would inhabit.

For me, the Constitution is a statement of intent, with guidelines, to create the amazing experiment that is America. Its what America stands for that is glorious, not the instruments we use to attain it.

[Rand Rover]

So, in other words, you side with ElvisLives and Dio that the US federal government is NOT a government only of enumerated powers. Good to know.

By the way, the Constitution doesn't explicitly empower the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution says (but the Supreme Court has decided that it does).

[Rand Rover]

The other thing about your position luci is that you can't seem to separate out the concepts of how things work and how you think things should work.

It absolutely is the case that the USFG can't do whatever it wants. Just read Lopez, and that's what it says. The fact that you disagree with this doesn't matter.

I also believe that "what the USFG can do" is set at the wrong level, but I understand that I am making an argument about what should be and not what is.

[John Mace]

I think we make it up as we go along, and have been from Day One. I think the Constitution was written by intelligent men of good will who didn't trust each other further than they could be tossed. I think it is a structure of ambiguities, umbras, penumbras. Luckily, we have a Supreme Court to certify what it says, as they were empowered by the Constitution to do.
Not quite. I'm sure you know about Marbury v Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)

It is absurd for a twenty-first century nation to overrule anything it may require due to the opinions of eighteenth century men who hadn't the least clue as to the world we would inhabit.
Agreed. That's why we have an amendment process. ;)

For me, the Constitution is a statement of intent, with guidelines, to create the amazing experiment that is America. Its what America stands for that is glorious, not the instruments we use to attain it.
What does America stand for, if not what have enshrined in the constitution? I mean, how does any of us know what that is? Some of us may think it stands for Christ's Kingdom on Earth.

[Polycarp]

Heh

Having read the Wikipedia background on the origins of "deem and pass", I'd like to suggest that the appropriate name for the lawsuits proposed by the Cooch, Idaho, etc., should be the "Slaughter House cases."

[elucidator]

The other thing about your position luci is that you can't seem to separate out the concepts of how things work and how you think things should work....

Hell, I'm just a country boy from Waco, I'm just lucky I fell off the turnip truck so close to you, so's I'd get some education!

[elucidator]

Oh, and guys? Yeah, I knew about Marlboro v. Madison, having a bit of fun there, you know? Talking how some of this stuff is made up as we go along? Not a great joke, but it didn't deserve to die like that. Too hip for the room, story of my life....

(I kinda expected RR to think I was that stupid, but you, John? I only hope I can find the strength to go on....)

But now that you mention it....if we are strictly Constitutional in our thinking, then that dastardly abrogation of power is illegal and all those decisions are null. But we don't think that, we mostly think it was such a good idea it should have been included, so we shrug and accept it.

I'm cool with that, I think it was that good an idea, and Marshall performed a service for his country he had absolutely no right to. Yay.