Typical Govt. Logic

[volinbham]

So the WH has filed papers with the SCOTUS claiming that if they overturn Obamacare it will wreak havoc with Medicare payments.

Classic, we created all these new laws that Medicare is preparing to comply with. If the law is struck down it causes problems. How about not writing the law if it won't stand Constitutional muster.



Medicare disruptions seen if health law is struck | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com

[hog88]

What's more shocking is that they think by sticking it down will cause problems is an excuse. Constitution be damned!

[utvolpj]

amazing that the WH thinks this is proper or even relevant. Students taught by Obama should demand a refund

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

So the WH has filed papers with the SCOTUS claiming that if they overturn Obamacare it will wreak havoc with Medicare payments.

Classic, we created all these new laws that Medicare is preparing to comply with. If the law is struck down it causes problems. How about not writing the law if it won't stand Constitutional muster.



Medicare disruptions seen if health law is struck | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com

The problem with your logic is that, if followed, the Congress could never do anything controversial because if later struck down there'd be some expense or hassle created by the effort just in the trying.

We can debate until the cows come home whether this particular piece of legislation was good policy, constitutional, etc. But in the end, no matter what happens, the simple fact is that something major is going to have to be done to overhaul the way we manage and pay for health care in this country. The current pace of increased expense is just not sustainable.

And so even if they got it wrong this time, I'd rather they take some shots at it until a solution is arrived at that works than just stagnate and let this continue to burden both individuals and businesses the way it does now.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The problem with your logic is that, if followed, the Congress could never do anything controversial because if later struck down there'd be some expense or hassle created by the effort just in the trying.

We can debate until the cows come home whether this particular piece of legislation was good policy, constitutional, etc. But in the end, no matter what happens, the simple fact is that something major is going to have to be done to overhaul the way we manage and pay for health care in this country. The current pace of increased expense is just not sustainable.

And so even if they got it wrong this time, I'd rather they take some shots at it until a solution is arrived at that works than just stagnate and let this continue to burden both individuals and businesses the way it does now.

No - what I'm saying is that it's crap logic to say the law should be upheld because if it isn't it will create a mess.

Congress has full power to reverse the laws at any time or make any number of fixes (assuming they are Constitutional)

It's a bogus reason for the SCOTUS to rule one way or the other and simply is a ploy to pass more blame.

[utvolpj]

I would appreciate having a congress that understands the Constitution but I realize that's just a pipe dream anymore

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

No - what I'm saying is that it's crap logic to say the law should be upheld because if it isn't it will create a mess.

Congress has full power to reverse the laws at any time or make any number of fixes (assuming they are Constitutional)

It's a bogus reason for the SCOTUS to rule one way or the other and simply is a ploy to pass more blame.

Ah, okay, gotcha.

I doubt that the Court would be persuaded one way or the other by that argument. More likely, it was offered up to reinforce the notion that the law affects interstate commerce because ti results in some Medicare restructuring.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

I would appreciate having a congress that understands the Constitution but I realize that's just a pipe dream anymore

This post hurts my head because it assumes, unconstitutionally, that there is one correct interpretation of the Constitution.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

This post hurts my head because it assumes, unconstitutionally, that there is one correct interpretation of the Constitution.

not entirely what I meant but I'm ok with giving you a headache.

Many statements made by members of Congress are not even close to matching up with the document. I'm not talking about everlasting debates around words like 'militia' but there are laws being passed where the document is clearly ignored. Of course when people in certain states send reps that sound barely literate it's not really a surprise

as for the HC bill, none of them even read the complete version before passing it. There is no way it could have ever been evaluated for constitutionality if that's true right?

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

not entirely what I meant but I'm ok with giving you a headache.

Many statements made by members of Congress are not even close to matching up with the document. I'm not talking about everlasting debates around words like 'militia' but there are laws being passed where the document is clearly ignored. Of course when people in certain states send reps that sound barely literate it's not really a surprise

That is all according to your interpretation of the Constitution.

The point of the document is to describe the relationship and exercise of authority between governments, and between governments and individual men. It is a tug of war that has gone on since governments were first formed and will continue.

The reason this country has been so successful is because of the balance of power between total authority and unchecked freedom wisely described by the document.

That the balance is debated and reconsidered over time is, in my view, a testament to the strength of the document and its principles, rather than an indictment of those who dare to disagree with the current arrangement.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

That is all according to your interpretation of the Constitution.

no it's according to any rational person's interpretation. The goal of the document was to limit the effect/power of govt on the citizens. Our current system isn't even close to that.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

no it's according to any rational person's interpretation. The goal of the document was to limit the effect/power of govt on the citizens. Our current system isn't even close to that.

Thank you for proving my point.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Thank you for proving my point.

the only point being proven in this is that no one in the WH and very few on the hill have a clue what the document truly means or says. It appears we can also add Florida lawyers to that list

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

the only point being proven in this is that no one in the WH and very few on the hill have a clue what the document truly means or says. It appears we can also add Florida lawyers to that list

The country can rest easy tonight, knowing that you have the singular correct interpretation locked down.

Whew! That's a load off !

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The country can rest easy tonight, knowing that you have the singular correct interpretation locked down.

Whew! That's a load off !

when have I ever made that claim? My views are shared by many.