I know it’s a stretch, but as often as doctors decide it’s their business and publish studies of guns (with bad epistemology) treated as if they were a public health problem similar to, say, smoking or high calorie diets, this is vaguely concerning, in the same way that the deeper government involvement health care becomes, the more a case they can make for a public interest in greater control of things with medical costs - from junk food to gun rights. It’s very much a stretch, but there are medical organizations who are actively political in the arena of gun control when it’s really not relevant to their purpose and none of their professional business.
A stretch? Well, yes. World War II was noisy. The Milky Way Galaxy is big. I am smart. That sort of thing.
Often the difference between “no ideas” and “no good ideas” gets blurred in the media filter. This is a great example of “no good ideas,” since the CBO has estimated that the effect of this bill would be to have 52 million Americans without health insurance.
Are death panels included in your proposed government takeover of healthcare? 
False dichotomy? 
Excluded muddle.
:dubious: Try any high-school civics textbook.
Hmm… under which article of the Constitution can that be found?
The way the Founders designed the system, senators were not to be voted into office, but rather appointed by the legislatures of the states. Obviously, that should be reconsidered.
Yes, the drafters of the Constitution knew not of this moderne thing called “compromise.”
It is only 200-odd years later that we have dissected the debates and determined the fossil evidence of agreements that, through Darwin’s theories, we can understand have evolved into our understanding of the Great Compromise (compromissum connecticutium), the 3/5 Compromise (compromissum sclavus), the Commerce Compromise (compromissum taxare), and the Electoral College Compromise (compromissum bush the younger).
Huzzah for science!
Article 1, where it says that there are Senators from each state.
Of course they were voted into office. How do you think the state legislators chose them, drawing straws? All that’s changed is who’s doing the voting, but it’s always been someone associated with that state.
Praise the filibuster! God forbid Senators are allowed to vote on HCR, wouldn’t want representative democracy spoiling the day, now would we?
Remember when Dems in the Senate were holding up confirmation of W’s judicial appointments, and the Pubs threatened the “constitutional option”* of abolishing the filibuster? Good time to remind them of that.
- A name picked as sounding nicer than “nuclear option,” but with nothing else to recommend it; the filibuster is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional, it exists because the Constitution, other than laying down a very few procedural rules for Congress (50%+1 of total membership present = a quorum, etc.), leaves it to each house to make its own rules. At first “unlimited debate” was the rule in both houses; in the early 19th Century the House of Representatives got so big they decided unlimited debate was too time-consuming and impractical, so they simply changed the rules, no big deal. But the Senate never has.
If Harry Reid won’t change the rules to do away with the 60 vote requirement. I sure hope he at least forces the Pubbies to actually filibuster the bill with hours of speeches, not just fold at the mere threat of filibuster.
Again…Reid is a giant pussy. Not a chance he’ll force that. HCR will be down to mandated coverage and tort reform by the time it passes with Reid in charge.
-Joe
Heh. [/idic_gesture]
It’s not that he’s a pussy, it’s that a filibuster stops all legislation from being considered. That means climate change and financial reform bills do not get voted on. It also means that bills to create new jobs don’t get voted on. I would love to see Reid make a spectacle out of the Republicans, but the country has serious problems that need to be addressed. A filibuster will just waste too much time, and it’s not like the Republican Senators will have a difficult time talking about nonsense for hours.
If anything, the judiciary has the role of upholding the Constitution. The legislature has to work in a manner the judges find acceptable while serving the interests of their constituents.
So I agree with you and Carol is wrong. In fact, I’m a little surprised that a “Branches of Government 101” review was necessary.
No, Carol is not wrong. Mrs. Phelps swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Her vote did neither.
:rolleyes: Yes, Carol is wrong that everything besides that oath is “superfluous.” As for this particular vote, see post #73.
You still haven’t named anything unconstitutional about the bill.
I think they’d love it at this point. Support for the health care plan is now down to 38%. And that was before people learned of the shenanigans and payouts and deals cut to get past the first vote.
If anything, I think there’s a whole lot of Democrats who are now wishing this whole issue had never been brought up and that it would just quietly go away. They’re hanging themselves on it.