The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[jamil]

He may not, but the SCOTUS did and they supported the Individual Mandate. So You The Person has no right, at this point, to complain. The legal process is done and the Individual Mandate is Constitutional. Sorry.

C'mon, man. Did you even read it?

The SCOTUS majority ruled that the individual mandate IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL under the commerce clause.

The moonbeam minority wing of the court, of course ruled that the government does have the authority to force people to purchase a product, a position they would doubtfully take if it were a product conservatives favor. However, pertaining to the individual mandate via commerce clause, the court ruled that Congress' authority to regulate commerce does not extend to "compelling commerce".

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con- gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin- ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus- tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Robert's opinion made it clear that he thought it was the duty of the court to find a way to make the law constitutional, and that the court could only do that if it's called a tax. But before the ruling the Republicans charged that the AFA raised taxes. All the moonbeams scoffed. The POTUS, Reid, Pelosi, Bacchus, one of the chief architects of it, the press, pundits, all the moonies argued vehemently that it's not a tax.

But since the only way to make it constitutional was to call it a tax, it's now expedient for everyone to call it a tax. So, nod-nod-wink-wink, the individual mandate isn't an individual mandate, it's a tax.

And thus, with the exception of the medicaid extortion provision of AFA being struck down as unconstitutional, the AFA is constitutional because the SCOTUS says it is, rather than because it actually is.

 

[jamil]

I kind of think it's funny that you guys are arguing about the ACA. I made this thread to show that the House Republicans planned this shutdown and then changed the House rules so Boehner could be the only person to bring a vote to end it. And he's using that newly changed rule to continue it until he gets his way.

Welcome to 'Murican politics. It's not a Republican thing. It's a D.C. thing. If you think that this is unprecedented or that Harry Reid hasn't done the same things, you've got your head buried in some pretty thick moon dust.

 

[steveh_131]

Again, it's a poor question because the premise that you gave can't happen. It's a nonsensical "what if" and a serious debate doesn't dive into speculative "what ifs". It's a waste of time.

It's not nonsensical. It could happen in a world where the court systems decided that the 'law' and its original intent doesn't matter. Basically the same way our judicial branch feels about the constitution and its initial intent.

So stop being a chicken and answer the question.

 

[Pooty22]

]If you think that this is unprecedented or that Harry Reid hasn't done the same things

Could you cite, with source, some examples of what you would consider to be something similar to this or proof that Reid has done similar? If there was a rule change like this in the Senate I'd like to know about it.

 

[steveh_131]

Could you cite, with source, some examples of what you would consider to be something similar to this or proof that Reid has done similar? If there was a rule change like this in the Senate I'd like to know about it.

Senate Rule Changes: Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Spar Over Filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules
Reid Moves to Change Senate Rules Behind Closed Doors

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes, I said your example was a poor example. I'm glad we both agree.



That's your opinion and truly it doesn't matter.



Again, it's a poor question because the premise that you gave can't happen. It's a nonsensical "what if" and a serious debate doesn't dive into speculative "what ifs". It's a waste of time.

Why is his example a nonsensical what if? The Supreme Court would never rule 7-2 that owning people was ok either then right?

 

[jamil]

Rules are changed by the majority party. Why would you think this change sets some kind of precedence? And why would you think that democrats are immune from pulling procedural tricks?

Of COURSE they change the rules to manipulate the process.

Back when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, she made a VERY SIMILAR rule change, after which the Republicans were the ones complaining. It's funny that Van Hollen was silent about "suspending democracy" then.

 

[Pooty22]

Senate Rule Changes: Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Spar Over Filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules
Reid Moves to Change Senate Rules Behind Closed Doors

That's three articles about the same thing. And I honestly don't feel that changing the filibuster voting rules is on the same level of shadyness as giving all the power to introduce bills for a vote in the House to Boehner.

The way I interpret this rule change is thus: Boehner and the Republican leaders planned the shutdown and had this rule change in mind and in place before we officially got there. This is evidenced by the fact that the change was made on Sept. 30. They changed the rule because they (Boehner and his Tea Party folk) knew that if a clean spending bill to fund the government were presented in the House, it would have passed on the first vote with bi-partisan support.

 

[steveh_131]

That's three articles about the same thing. And I honestly don't feel that changing the filibuster voting rules is on the same level of shadyness as giving all the power to introduce bills for a vote in the House to Boehner. .

You asked a question, I answered. Deal with it.

Here's some more, from 2009:

The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn’t survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation.

Let's not pretend that either party is above this. The majority gets some advantages. One of them is the ability to change the rules.

You only think it's 'shady' because you love some big government.

 

[Stickfight]

You won't. The Constitution clearly gives the house the power of the purse and both the House and Senate the ability to create their own rules. Nothing so far has been unconstitutional.

This isn't about purse strings, despite Cruz et al trying to make it out to be. The major components of Obamacare are entitlements and don't need a CR for funding.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it...

So those boxes are all checked for Obamacare.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

And that box is checked for Obamacare.

Strangely I don't see your name in there, or mention of any Judicial Council of INGO, or Rush Limbaugh having to concur. I don't see mention of SCOTUS rulings applying only if every individual citizen agrees. What I see is a law duly passed and duly reviewed as per the process described in the Constitution, and a political party using procedural hand waving to hold government services hostage in exchange for undoing that process. I read the thing twice again to find where one half of Congress has the power to undo the other half plus the Judicial plus the Executive, but I'm not finding it. Is it in the revision they hand out at the GOP meetings?

 

[Smokepole]

Heh. Another one of these "it's constitutional because the supreme court says so". What a stupid argument.

The constitution, as it was written and intended, did not authorize the federal government to do 90% of the crap that it does. That is why I call it 'unconstitutional'.

If you define it differently, as in 'whatever the partisan judicial branch says', then fair enough. But let's not pretend that we are arguing on the same plane at all.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You beat me to it. DRAT!

 

[Pooty22]

You only think it's 'shady' because you love some big government.

I would argue that it depends on how you define big government. I've never met a Republican that had a problem with spending billions a year on the military or border security. Where are those billions going to come from? A big government that taxes its people to pay for what it deems necessary. And here in Indiana we have a Republican government that has been pushing quite a bit of weight around when it comes to selling schools and teachers how to teach. Republicans spend just as much money as Dems. It's just that Dems don't like the way Republicans spend money and Republicans don't like the way Dems spend money.

 

[buckstopshere]

I would argue that it depends on how you define big government. I've never met a Republican that had a problem with spending billions a year on the military or border security. Where are those billions going to come from? A big government that taxes its people to pay for what it deems necessary. And here in Indiana we have a Republican government that has been pushing quite a bit of weight around when it comes to selling schools and teachers how to teach. Republicans spend just as much money as Dems. It's just that Dems don't like the way Republicans spend money and Republicans don't like the way Dems spend money.

Yes, there is big .gov spending in both parties. Statists in both parties. Cronyism in both parties. A lack of respect for the individual in both parties. So why support either party?

I will say that the Cruz, Paul, Lee faction of the GOP is at least talking about moving the country back towards fiscal responsibility and less .gov intervention in our individual lives (although I'm skeptical in the execution of those words if one was to win). I don't see anyone on the left preaching that message.

 

[steveh_131]

I would argue that it depends on how you define big government. I've never met a Republican that had a problem with spending billions a year on the military or border security. Where are those billions going to come from? A big government that taxes its people to pay for what it deems necessary. And here in Indiana we have a Republican government that has been pushing quite a bit of weight around when it comes to selling schools and teachers how to teach. Republicans spend just as much money as Dems. It's just that Dems don't like the way Republicans spend money and Republicans don't like the way Dems spend money.

I agree, except for the school thing. Did you mean 'telling' schools and teachers how to teach? If so, I'd say that's simply trying to manage the already big government, not necessarily expanding it.

Otherwise, you're absolutely right that both parties are all about taxing and spending.

Nevertheless, in this case there are a couple of 'Republicans' who seem to actually be trying to reign in the federal over-reach. And in that, I support them.

 

[Pooty22]

I agree, except for the school thing. Did you mean 'telling' schools and teachers how to teach? If so, I'd say that's simply trying to manage the already big government, not necessarily expanding it.

Yes I meant "telling." I wrote that on my phone last night.

 

[Smokepole]

I'm not sure I agree. If the Constitution was that black and white, there'd be no reason for the existence of the Supreme Court. The genius of the Constitution was that it's interepretation could grow with changing times. Nothing in the Constitution will ever be only "this way,"and "not another." That may trouble some, but at least the way our history has unfound since the very begining, that's simply the way it is.

Not accurate. Under Article III Sec. 2 the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases involving Ambassadors, other public officials and all cases between States and cases in which a State is a party. In all other cases it maintains appellate jurisdiction.

And on the "Living Constitution" thing (which it most DEFINITELY is NOT), why don't we go back an see what the Founding Fathers intended. One of my favorites is Mr. Jefferson:

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

The SCOTUS took the power of deciding the Constitutionality of legislation through a series of cases, the most often referred to - and likely most notable - being Marbury vs. Madison. The problem was the Presidents the Legislature didn't seem to understand how to combat this.

It would seem that the limits mentioned have all but been done away with.

Madison:

"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

James Madison Speech in Congress
Categories: Constitution,Constitutional Interpretation

Date: February 6, 1792
I, sir, have always conceived - I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived,and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers - but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.

James MadisonThe Federalist Papers Federalist No. 41

Categories: Constitutional Interpretation
Date: January 19, 1788
THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its branches.

James Madison letter to Henry Lee

Categories: Constitutional Interpretation
Date: June 25, 1824

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.

If the Constitution were truly intended to be a "Living Document" there would have been no point whatsoever in including an amendment process. That process would have been handled by the ever changing whims of the Legislature and the Judiciary. Which seems to be EXACTLY what we have now and few seem to have the chutzpa to put a stop to.

And lastly a quote by Justice William Paterson, an Associate Justice on the SCOTUS at the time of Marbury vs. Madison:

William Paterson VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance

Categories: Constitution, Constitutional Interpretation
Date: April, 1795
What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. (THE PEOPLE)

Again, the AMENDMENT PROCESS.

WHEW! time to put that thing away.

 

[jamil]

The constitution is "living" only in that there is a prescribed process for changing it.

 

[Smokepole]

Exactly. But there are quite a few that refer to the Living part as being open to interpretation in regard to the whims of whomever happens to need it to be something different at the time. And there is now way to have any integrity in the Legislative and Judicial systems when things can mean whatever one wants at a given time.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I kind of think it's funny that you guys are arguing about the ACA. I made this thread to show that the House Republicans planned this shutdown and then changed the House rules so Boehner could be the only person to bring a vote to end it. And he's using that newly changed rule to continue it until he gets his way.

"Each House may determine the rules of it's proceedings." [h=1]U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 5[/h]
That rule change was just one of many that occur with each new Congress. The majority in the House and Senate change the rules in their favor. That's part of the process.

 

[rambone]

I think it's difficult to say that the ACA is UnConstitutional, especially in light the Second Militia Act of 1792 which conscripted and required every man between 18-54 to provide for themselves a musket, bayonet, and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. However, like the ACA, there were exemptions for certain occupations.

...and keep in mind that this was signed into law by George Washington, himself

Why not just point out that both laws are unconstitutional? One violation of the constitution does not beget the next.

There's a reason that people say that the constitution was being trampled before the ink had dried.


Echoing what was said above, Article 1 Section 8 contains federal powers. Anything not explicitly listed there is outside the power of the federal government. If they wanted to add a power, they needed to pass an amendment. For the federal government to involve itself in health care, there should have been an amendment stating it explicitly. Until then, health care -- and the vast majority of federal endeavors -- does not correspond with the written document. The states never gave their consent to change the federal government via the amendment process.