• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

ReverendHellh0und said:
:lol:


com·merce/ˈkämərs/
Noun:

The activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.



Not buying something, is not..... **Commerce** the FEDGOV has no right to FORCE you into the activity of commerce, through the levy of fines and penalties.. Please show me some examples where they do. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Part of the issue here is that the SC is being asked to find that balance between the Tenth Amendment and Commerce Clause. Prior to 1913, the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures allowing states to be represented in the federal government. If this model applied today PPACA may have not passed if 52 senators(26 states) voted against the bill after it passed the House. If it had passed judicial restraint would have been easier to apply because techically a majority of states(thru the senate) would have supported PPACA. IMO
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.
Click to expand...



I guess if your a statist, you could rationalize it that way. But it's unconstitutional, what would stop them from fining you for... Not going to college? Not taking mass transit? Not buying nicoderm patches? etc... It's a silly argument that the administration is making, that you are repeating....

not only does it violate the commerce clause, but the 10th amendment as well. What business is it of the government to dictate to the states what it's citizens must buy?

Please, again, I asked you once, you seem to have a knack of just ignoring the tough questions, but I'll ask again. Please tell me what other things the Government forces us to purchase.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

ReverendHellh0und said:
I guess if your a statist, you could rationalize it that way. But it's unconstitutional, what would stop them from fining you for... Not going to college? Not taking mass transit? Not buying nicoderm patches? etc... It's a silly argument that the administration is making, that you are repeating....

not only does it violate the commerce clause, but the 10th amendment as well. What business is it of the government to dictate to the states what it's citizens must buy?

Please, again, I asked you once, you seem to have a knack of just ignoring the tough questions, but I'll ask again. Please tell me what other things the Government forces us to purchase.
Click to expand...

See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate.
Click to expand...



Wow what a stretch..... :lol: again, still waiting for you to show me an example, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

ReverendHellh0und said:
Wow what a stretch..... :lol: again, still waiting for you to show me an example, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service.
Click to expand...

Nice punt. :lol:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
I already explained this. You don't seem to understand the selection process.
Click to expand...

In fact I do understand the process because I did the research.
Hmm, I believe the quote you're referring to was pulled from a letter he wrote while in law school?
Click to expand...

Yes, and therein he referred to his receiving affirmative action status.
How dare he not anticipate your obsession with his academic record 20 years in the future!
Click to expand...

Are you saying that he would have preferred that his receiving affirmative action status would then have remained a secret? And I'm not obsessing about anything. You're denying the truth and denying that I demonstrated the truth while it's clear he received support due to the color of his skin. That's just the way it is.
No, they didn't "set aside" his grades. Half the people on the law review are chosen on the basis of grades and the other half are chosen on the basis of a writing competition.
Click to expand...

But of course it didn't stop there. He received affirmative action, and if you look at his writing you can see how dreadful it actually is. He had no success at HLR. perhaps you didn't see the part where it was decided that minorities were underrepresented and they should receive affirmative action. It's all there and Barack Obama says so.

WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...

It seems that BHO is not the only one who has problems reading and writing. He didn't absorb much about the law or the Constitution while at Harvard and you can't see what a poor writer he is, even though there was a link demonstrating his ineptness in this regard.

It is absolutely the truth. Did you go to college? Do you know what it means to graduate magna cum laude? Hint: it means that you graduated at the top of your class. In the case of Harvard Law, at the time Obama was there, it meant that you were in the top 13% or better.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between graduating in the top 13% and graduating at the top of the class, as you claimed? There is a great deal of speculation about where he actually finished but judging by his writing and his lack of knowledge of the Constitution it seems he must have struggled as a student, had some insider help, or the standards at Harvard have dropped significantly.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Grant said:
In fact I do understand the process because I did the research.
Click to expand...

Research without aptitude is not necessarily fruitful.

Yes, and therein he referred to his receiving affirmative action status.
Click to expand...

Yes, as we've discussed several times.

Are you saying that he would have preferred that his receiving affirmative action status would then have remained a secret? And I'm not obsessing about anything. You're denying the truth and denying that I demonstrated the truth while it's clear he received support due to the color of his skin. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that it's idiotic to criticize Obama because something he wrote 20 years ago didn't entirely answer a question that you have today. Clearly you're not obsessing about it. :2rofll:

The truth is evident and I'm certainly not denying it. You simply want to read into the facts more than is there.

But of course it didn't stop there. He received affirmative action, and if you look at his writing you can see how dreadful it actually is. He had no success at HLR. perhaps you didn't see the part where it was decided that minorities were underrepresented and they should receive affirmative action. It's all there and Barack Obama says so.
Click to expand...

ODS.jpg


Gee, where to start on that pile of hore****. Okay, obviously his writing is very good or he would not have won the Harvard Law Review writing competition. Reminder: the essays were graded anonymously, so there was no affirmative action there. Of course his first book (which I'm sure you've read, right?) also met with critical acclaim:

In discussing Dreams from My Father, Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison has called Obama "a writer in my high esteem" and the book "quite extraordinary." She praised "his ability to reflect on this extraordinary mesh of experiences that he has had, some familiar and some not, and to really meditate on that the way he does, and to set up scenes in narrative structure, dialogue, conversation—all of these things that you don't often see, obviously, in the routine political memoir biography. [...] It's unique. It's his. There are no other ones like that."[31] In an interview for The Daily Beast, author Philip Roth said he had read Dreams from My Father "with great interests," and commented that he had found it "well done and very persuasive and memorable."[32]

The book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician," wrote Time columnist Joe Klein.[33] In 2008, The Guardian's Rob Woodard wrote that Dreams from My Father "is easily the most honest, daring, and ambitious volume put out by a major US politician in the last 50 years."[34] Michiko Kakutani, the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for The New York Times, described it as "the most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president."[35]

Dreams from My Father - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

More than a million and a half copies have been sold.

It seems that BHO is not the only one who has problems reading and writing. He didn't absorb much about the law or the Constitution while at Harvard and you can't see what a poor writer he is, even though there was a link demonstrating his ineptness in this regard.
Click to expand...

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the president of a law review actually does. He or she essentially plays the role of publisher and/or chief editor. The president of a law review doesn't have much time for his or her own writing -- although Obama did author one article.

Do you understand the difference between graduating in the top 13% and graduating at the top of the class, as you claimed?
Click to expand...

Yes, top means top. Generally when someone graduates magna cum laude you would say that they graduated at the top of their class. If someone graduated first in their class one generally says that he graduated first in his class.

Why are you struggling so mightily to deny Obama's obviously excellent law school performance? Is there something in particular about Obama that makes you think he just couldn't have done as well as he did? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
Come back when you figure out the difference between direct and indirect regulation of commerce. Until you get that distinction I just don't see the point in trying to discuss this with you.
Click to expand...

Ah, tucking tail and running again.

Look, you made a dumb claim. It would have looked better for you if you'd have just manned up and admitted it.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Harshaw said:
Ah, tucking tail and running again.

Look, you made a dumb claim. It would have looked better for you if you'd have just manned up and admitted it.
Click to expand...

You're funny. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water....
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
You're funny. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water....
Click to expand...

...buy you can't make him understand the Constitution.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Erod said:
...buy you can't make him understand the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The "constitution"? He just said something dumb, to wit, the housing market doesn't substantially affect interstate commerce. In facyt, home sales, according to him, affect interstate commerce less than anything else he can think of. This is what he said.

Then, he tried to twist everything I said around to cover it and save face.

I mean, come on . . . HE says buying a home doesn't affect interstate commerce, but then says I'm arguing that Congress doesn't regulate home loans. Contradiction, you think? A feeble and obvious attempt at a particularly flimsy strawman? Yes, yes it is. But that's AdamT.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Harshaw said:
The "constitution"? He just said something dumb, to wit, the housing market doesn't substantially affect interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Again, your failure to grasp the argument must be very very frustrating for you. It's like a puppy trying to grab a treat from the table. He jumps and jumps and jumps, but his little legs just can't lift him high enough!

So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.

Stop running away from the argument. It was the central point of the Lopez case which you have cited but apparently don't understand. It is the difference that distinguishes Lopez from the mandate case. So you can see how snarky comments that miss the point aren't earning you a lot of points. Nor is stupidly conflating the regulation of home sales (local) with the regulation of mortgage banking (national).
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
Again, your failure to grasp the argument must be very very frustrating for you. It's like a puppy trying to grab a treat from the table. He jumps and jumps and jumps, but his little legs just can't lift him high enough!

So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.

Stop running away from the argument. It was the central point of the Lopez case which you have cited but apparently don't understand. It is the difference that distinguishes Lopez from the mandate case. So you can see how snarky comments that miss the point aren't earning you a lot of points. Nor is stupidly conflating the regulation of home sales (local) with the regulation of mortgage banking (national).
Click to expand...

There are times when I wonder if what I think is abject dishonesty on your part stems more from just saying whatever you have to say at the moment and not even caring what you said before.

This is what you said:

AdamT said:
It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home).
Click to expand...

To which I was responding. All of your other bull**** has to do with the strawmen you want to raise about it, not what I said.

Health care itself is intrastate, too. It happens locally. You go to your doctor or hospital and you rarely ever cross state lines to do it. Everything that happens, happens in-state.

Thus, it's very much like buying a home.

Buying a home is every bit as "connected to" interstate commerce as going to a doctor or hospital -- health care -- is, not least because of the financing.

The financing is currently in crisis, just as, supposedly, health care financing is. This can be alleviated in part by forcing people to engage in the market, just as the mandate is supposed to do for health care financing.

It's an apples-to-apples comparison. The mechanism for one works with the other.

You, of course, will never, ever agree, but denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you refuse to acknowledge it. And I get why you would -- because it shows a very real, and very unpalatable, implication of the arguments you're making. Uncomfortable with it? Perhaps you should take a wider view before you commit to the arguments.

Never mind that the idea that the housing market isn't connected to interstate commerce SHOULD be laughable on its face.

(Oh, and as for Lopez, which I didn't bring up here, but it didn't stop you from attributing it to me anyway -- the regulated activity which was considered not to have enough of an effect didn't involve buying anything or participating in commerce of any kind. Unlike, of course, buying a home and participating in the financing market. This, I'm sure, will be one of your famous "distinctions without a difference.")
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Can you regulate either if they haven't been purchased?

j-mac
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Harshaw said:
There are times when I wonder if what I think is abject dishonesty on your part stems more from just saying whatever you have to say at the moment and not even caring what you said before.

This is what you said:



To which I was responding. All of your other bull**** has to do with the strawmen you want to raise about it, not what I said.

Health care itself is intrastate, too. It happens locally. You go to your doctor or hospital and you rarely ever cross state lines to do it. Everything that happens, happens in-state.

Thus, it's very much like buying a home.

Buying a home is every bit as "connected to" interstate commerce as going to a doctor or hospital -- health care -- is, not least because of the financing.

The financing is currently in crisis, just as, supposedly, health care financing is. This can be alleviated in part by forcing people to engage in the market, just as the mandate is supposed to do for health care financing.

It's an apples-to-apples comparison. The mechanism for one works with the other.

You, of course, will never, ever agree, but denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you refuse to acknowledge it. And I get why you would -- because it shows a very real, and very unpalatable, implication of the arguments you're making. Uncomfortable with it? Perhaps you should take a wider view before you commit to the arguments.

Never mind that the idea that the housing market isn't connected to interstate commerce SHOULD be laughable on its face.

(Oh, and as for Lopez, which I didn't bring up here, but it didn't stop you from attributing it to me anyway -- the regulated activity which was considered not to have enough of an effect didn't involve buying anything or participating in commerce of any kind. Unlike, of course, buying a home and participating in the financing market. This, I'm sure, will be one of your famous "distinctions without a difference.")
Click to expand...

Your problem is simply that you either cannot understand the argument, or you're just too bullheaded to even acknowledge it. The mandate isn't about health care; it's about health insurance. Specifically, it is intended to allow national health insurance companies -- companies that sell insurance all over the country -- to eliminate preexisting condition exclusions without going bust. It has to do with the DIRECT regulation of interstate commerce.

Home sales, in contrast, are local. They are governed by state contract law. The sale occurs in the state where the home is purchased. Houses don't move across state lines. It is hard to imagine a more local activity than buying a home. Of course like many local activities (growing wheat, for example), home sales can have a significant effect on interstate commerce -- WHILE NOT BEING THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Are you simply incapable of seeing that distinction? Yes or no?

Assuming, arguendo, that you answered yes, do you or do you not understand that there are different standards for direct and indirect regulation of interstate commerce? Yes or no?

Can you answer two yes or no questions without going off on another stalker-like tangent about what you think I *really* meant or *really* think?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

AdamT said:
Your problem is simply that you either cannot understand the argument, or you're just too bullheaded to even acknowledge it. The mandate isn't about health care; it's about health insurance. Specifically, it is intended to allow national health insurance companies -- companies that sell insurance all over the country -- to eliminate preexisting condition exclusions without going bust. It has to do with the DIRECT regulation of interstate commerce.

Home sales, in contrast, are local. They are governed by state contract law. The sale occurs in the state where the home is purchased. Houses don't move across state lines. It is hard to imagine a more local activity than buying a home. Of course like many local activities (growing wheat, for example), home sales can have a significant effect on interstate commerce -- WHILE NOT BEING THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Are you simply incapable of seeing that distinction? Yes or no?

Assuming, arguendo, that you answered yes, do you or do you not understand that there are different standards for direct and indirect regulation of interstate commerce? Yes or no?

Can you answer two yes or no questions without going off on another stalker-like tangent about what you think I *really* meant or *really* think?
Click to expand...

And . . . you ignored everything I said about the interstate market of financing home purchases being comparable to financing health care (health insurance) and instead decided to focus on the home purchase itself.

See, you're being every bit as stubborn as I said you were going to be. You're beyond rational conversation at this point; you just want to be right no matter what. You're simply trying to talk past me.

And ironically, I'm pretty sure it stems for your own, very real, failure to understand my hypothetical in the first place, while you keep accusing ME of not understanding things YOU post.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Harshaw said:
And . . . you ignored everything I said about the interstate market of financing home purchases being comparable to financing health care (health insurance) and instead decided to focus on the home purchase itself.

See, you're being every bit as stubborn as I said you were going to be. You're beyond rational conversation at this point; you just want to be right no matter what. You're simply trying to talk past me.

And ironically, I'm pretty sure it stems for your own, very real, failure to understand my hypothetical in the first place, while you keep accusing ME of not understanding things YOU post.
Click to expand...

Translation: "no, I cannot answer two simple yes/no questions."
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

ReverendHellh0und said:
Hmm the way you avoid mine, i don't think this post was your prime play. :prof
Click to expand...

For example?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

ReverendHellh0und said:
#305, #303 and thats on this page alone. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hardly on this page, and I checked 303 and I answered it in post #304. #305 is just restating the question from #303 that I answered in #304. WTF? Not giving the answer you wanted is not the same things as not answering.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Hardly on this page, and I checked 303 and I answered it in post #304. #305 is just restating the question from #303 that I answered in #304. WTF? Not giving the answer you wanted is not the same things as not answering.
Click to expand...




You did not answer it, yo dodged it.

How many?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom