Posted on 05/06/2012 9:27:44 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy -- cloak themselves in the myth that they are somehow channeling the wisdom and understanding of the Founding Fathers, the original intent that guided the drafting of the Constitution. I believe the premise of their argument is itself suspect: It is not clear how much weight should be given to non-textually based intent that is practically impossible to discern more than 200 years later. Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.
Those opposing the bill insist that an individual mandate has never been done and the framers would simply not permit such an encroachment on liberty and freedom.
These examples show the fallacy and the false rigidity that the originalists seek to impose on our government. In their effort to cabin and restrain the government they seek to have the benefit of the claim that the founders shared such a limited approach to governing. In fact, the approach to governing that these acts demonstrate is more nuanced and thoughtful.
As with so many of the claims of the originalists, a slight understanding of the true history shows that the originalists’ view is mere ideology being imposed on a false understanding of history.
(Excerpt) Read more at columbian.com ...
Lucky for me I wasn’t drinking my coffee when I read that headline!
Spitzer needs to stick to hiring hookers. The boy is clueless when it comes to America, freedom and liberty.
Eliot, why do we have to listen to your drivel?
Why is it that Democrats caught up in scandal become rehabilitated as some sort of “elder statesmen” whom we are supposed to be in awe of??????
These people are so lame-———Politicians are people who think they know more than anybody else about everything there is to know....
The founders of RUSSIA maybe!!
I get it now. The founding Fathers actually were speaking in a code.
They meant exactly the opposite of what they said.
And to think there are some that listen to that demon of humanity.
Eliot wold like a date with that one over there ~ bring her to him eh!
But then again, the founders took off their socks while ridin’ dirty.
Are we hearing commentaries such as this, because the liberals expect Obamacare to be overturned? Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait for the ruling, then review the reasoning behind the majority opinion?
This guy is pre-emptively calling out five justices by name, and saying that their legal reasoning is suspect.
As we know, the justices have already decided the case. It’s just that the opinions haven’t been written and released to the public yet. But have Democrats gotten a heads-up that this will be overturned, which then in turn prompts Democrat talking points such as this commentary????
Is commentary like than an attempt to “de-legitimize” if that’s a word, the ruling of the court? Then will liberals feel that they can trash the court ruling as unfounded in the constitution?????
Finally, are liberals so enamored of big government, that they can’t understand how there can be any limits on the powers of the federal government? That’s a key issue in this case, as to whether the federal government can compel all of us to do a certain thing, by buying officially approved health insurance policies.
Can you believe this f***ing idiot was elected Governor of New York State?
Hey Client #9: Whatever do you think Thomas Jefferson might have meant when he wrote: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."?
Love,
ML/NJ
THIS is how Liberals ALWAYS want to discard the Constitution; by saying it was "not envisioned by The Founders", whenever they want to install their Agenda.
The Founders were forming a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, with LIMITED POWER, and The States retain all Rights not enunciated in the Constitution.
Freedom from Government interference in personal choice, personal responsibility for one's outcomes, etc., are no change from the Intent. MANDATING AND FORCING Citizens to perform at the whim of the Federal Government is TOTALLY OUTSIDE the Intent.
One of the MAJOR problems in the Country today is the ascension of FOOLS like Spitzer, to Attorney General posions, and to Judgeships, where they try to make Law by contorted/Agenda-driven "Interpretations" that don't pass the Smell Test, nor the Common Sense Test.
“posions”=”positions”
And yet these are still examples of the use of force that violates the natural rights of an individual, and if allowed to continue,will sooner of later, eventually lead to the destructive consequences of unlimited government scope and power.
At least this guy tried to write a reasonable article (reasonable for the left)
He sites:
In 1790, a Congress including 20 founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the claim Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Im not a lawyer but I bet that can be picked apart in no time
able bodied men buying guns is the same as the draft .....Does the left really want o compare compulsory healthcare with going to war?
the other 2 examples are about high risk occupations which dont apply across the board to all that breathe
A really sad commentary on what was once a great law school--#14 in the Country in the 1960's, it has dropped to the mid thirties the last time I looked. From a group of professors who included some of the leading academics in their field in several cases, they are now a group of has beens almost all of whom are rejects from the local law offices.
The bill does not contain a severance clause (a clause that preserves the bill even if part of the legislation is found unconstitutional). Thus from a technical perspective, any material element of the bill which does not pass Constitutional muster should be fatal to the entire bill. In this case, among other things, it is argued that in rejecting a severance clause, Congress must have intended the bill to fall if material parts of it are not constitutional.
Two of the elements of the bill are clearly unconstitutional: The "tax" clause which purported to levy a tax on non-complaint taxpayers is not a tax on income--Congress has only the Constitutional power to levy non-proportional taxes on "income"; thus the tax provision is generally recognized as unconstitutional.
The bill contains a mandate that requires citizen's to purchase health insurance. In theory, the power to impose the mandate is found in the interstate commerce clause. Problem is that health insurance cannot be sold across state lines in interstate commerce. Sure, there are arguments based on the proposition that health insurance affects other kinds of interstate commerce but any such affect is theoretical and indirect at best, particularly in the context of the waivers and exclusions which are applicable. In my view, there isn't any real credible argument the mandate is constitutional.
In my view, there simply isn't any real argument for either of the two primary legs of the bill. Under normal rules of Constitutional Law, absent a savings clause, this bill is simply not within the power of Congress under the Constitution. If the Court is really going to preserve our system of Constitutional government, it has no choice but to throw the bill out.
...Finally, are liberals so enamored of big government, that they can’t understand how there can be any limits on the powers of the federal government?...
Exactly. If there are no limits to federal tyranny, the coming conservative super majority could mandate every citizen purchase a gun. Explain that to a liberal and watch their head explode.
Every time I see Eliot Spitzer, all I can hear are the Beatles singing, “Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine ...”
Hey Eliot the founding fathers of this country would have had most of you and your ilk hanging from a gallows or shot without rerservation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.