# The Cooch thinks he's going to sue America if health care passes - what is it with this butthole? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838 "2010-03-18T02:38:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/81 "2010-03-18T17:51:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/82 "2010-03-18T17:57:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/83 "2010-03-18T18:01:45Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > . . . 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/84 "2010-03-18T18:29:10Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/85 "2010-03-18T18:35:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/86 "2010-03-18T18:52:49Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/87 "2010-03-18T19:43:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/88 "2010-03-18T20:02:16Z")
Of course it can. :rolleyes: Go do your homework, kid. ---
**Author:** ![Hey\_Hey\_Paula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hey\_Hey\_Paula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_Hey_Paula)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/89 "2010-03-18T20:14:35Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/90 "2010-03-18T20:40:03Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/91 "2010-03-18T21:14:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/92 "2010-03-18T23:28:02Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/93 "2010-03-18T23:30:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/94 "2010-03-18T23:35:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/95 "2010-03-18T23:47:59Z")
> [@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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/96 "2010-03-18T23:57:34Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/97 "2010-03-19T00:51:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/98 "2010-03-19T00:51:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/99 "2010-03-19T00:56:31Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838/100 "2010-03-19T00:59:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cooch-thinks-hes-going-to-sue-america-if-health-care-passes-what-is-it-with-this-butthole/532838.md?page=6)