Viva Socialism!

[Ocean of Notions]

I totally posted that upthread. :ninja:

But I was also thinking of Tormund...

Oops. Sorry! I didn't see it. :blushing:

[alguien]

Then consider that we have a deficit that is at 10% of GDP, and people with an honest belief in limited government have every right to be panicked. This is not the normal blip of a recession, then a recovery.

I hate to say this, but I would be more inclined to think their protests against Big Brother were genuine if they had been out in force during the passage of the Patriot Act, various illegal wiretapping operations, torture, and extradition.

Instead, most likely the very same people who are out "protecting our freedom" now were almost certainly the ones calling us treacherous traitors when we'd dare speak out against such actions.

To me it seems that its only when its not their (white) guy doing it that the rage and concern bubble forth. (to be fair, Dems can certainly be guilty of that)

Personally, I find the ability to pre-emptively strike a nation and topple its government based on a lie to be far more disturbing than bailing out national industries, preserving economic infrastructure, and broadening health care. YMMV. :commie:

Also, as far as the frontiersman national identity goes, I don't think we as Americans have been "self-reliant" or "individualistic" (read: genocidal colonialists) for over a hundred years. But that's another discussion entirely.

[alguien]

Oops. Sorry! I didn't see it. :blushing:

No worries! Glad to see its back again! :thumbsup:

[cjfshaw]

I haven't been paying attention to the whole healthcare debate or this thread even, but the title caught my eye because I saw an episode of Glenn Beck last night. It was straight up retarded. I laughed and laughed, and then slowly got angry at how dumb it was.

[Shryke]

More threats against Democrats:

Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.”

“My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just bombarded.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/24/stupak-death-threat/

[Foreverlad]

More threats against Democrats:

http://thinkprogress...k-death-threat/

Response #5 in that article was solid gold:

Stupak is not a fetus, so he’s fair game for these lunatics.

[tzanth]

Also, hilarious shit going on in the State of Washington:

Ya, its pretty ridiculous. How can you file suit on behalf of a client who vehemently disagrees with you? And if the AG isn't working for the Government or Legislature of his state then who is he working for?

Plus, its politically moronic. Health care reform is extremely popular in Washington State; Mckenna just committed political suicide. I love how the echo chamber of Fox News is causing Republicans to make such horribly misguided political decisions.

[Tempra]

Ya, its pretty ridiculous. How can you file suit on behalf of a client who vehemently disagrees with you? And if the AG isn't working for the Government or Legislature of his state then who is he working for?

The citizens of Washington. He is an elected official.

[Kalbear]

The citizens of Washington. He is an elected official.

Except neither the governor, the speaker of the house, any representatives of the house or anyone else who has an official capacity for the people of Washington apparently has requested this.

Right now, there is literally no evidence suggesting that a single Washingtonian has even requested this of the AG. Regardless, while the AG is an elected official, he is supposed to be working for the representatives of the state of Washington, and it would be reasonable to expect that he would at least consult with those who represent his constituents.

[Tempra]

Except neither the governor, the speaker of the house, any representatives of the house or anyone else who has an official capacity for the people of Washington apparently has requested this.

Right now, there is literally no evidence suggesting that a single Washingtonian has even requested this of the AG. Regardless, while the AG is an elected official, he is supposed to be working for the representatives of the state of Washington, and it would be reasonable to expect that he would at least consult with those who represent his constituents.

Your complaint is with Washington law:

"As the chief legal officer for the state, the attorney general typically represents state officials or agencies. However, he is a statewide elected official who, under state law, can bring lawsuits on behalf of the citizens of the state."

http://www.katu.com/news/88850532.html

Also, it is rather ridiculous for people to complain about testing the constitutional validity of a statute. It is even more ridiculous that the AG may have funds withdrawn while he ensures that Washington citizens are not subject to an unconstitutional law.

[alguien]

Your complaint is with Washington law:

"As the chief legal officer for the state, the attorney general typically represents state officials or agencies. However, he is a statewide elected official who, under state law, can bring lawsuits on behalf of the citizens of the state."

http://www.katu.com/news/88850532.html

Also, it is rather ridiculous for people to complain about testing the constitutional validity of a statute. It is even more ridiculous that the AG may have funds withdrawn while he ensures that Washington citizens are not subject to an unconstitutional law.

So I guess he is free to challenge the law, even though, as was pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence that the citizens support his lawsuit. (see MY bolded portion)

I guess he is also free to reap the political winds he has sown in the next election...

What's even more ridiculous is that you think the law is unconstitutional...

[Kalbear]

No, legally he's almost certainly fine; he does not need permission or consultation to get anything done, and this happens quite often.

But politically it's a huge issue. It's a big problem, especially since almost any time a state has a multistate issue or a federal issue it's the governor's ass on the line if something goes wrong, not the AG.

[Shryke]

It may be legal, but it's stupid. Both on face value and politically.

He only did it to boost his Conservative Cred for his upcoming primary.

Of course, considering how Washington State feels about Health Care, he's probably cost himself the general election, even if he wins the primary.

[Jon Sprunk]

I just have to say that I admire FLoW's demeanor throughout this thread. Although I disagree with most of what he says, I like the way he says it.

[Tempra]

So I guess he is free to challenge the law, even though, as was pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence that the citizens support his lawsuit. (see MY bolded portion)

Perhaps someone has a better grasp of standing in declaratory judgment actions, but i'm not sure that any citizen is needed. Regardless, why stress this point? There is certainly one Washingtonian somewhere who doesn't agree with the statute.

The bigger threat to the suit is the fact that the law does not go into effect for four years. Hardly "imminent danger."

I guess he is also free to reap the political winds he has sown in the next election...

Of course.

What's even more ridiculous is that you think the law is unconstitutional...

Did I say it was? Besides, a far more eminently qualified and respected legal scholar does think sections of the new law are unconstitutional.

[Shryke]

I think I'll go with the guy from Yale rather then the hack from the Heritage Foundation personally.

Shit, I'm pretty sure they just structured it as a Tax and Rebate, which is eminently constitutional.

[alguien]

Did I say it was? Besides, a far more eminently qualified and respected legal scholar does think sections of the new law are unconstitutional.

No, I guess you didn't directly say it was.

It is even more ridiculous that the AG may have funds withdrawn while he ensures that Washington citizens are not subject to an unconstitutional law.

I guess I just jumped to, ya'know, a reasonable conclusion.

Here's Shryke's post upthread that disagrees with your article's conclusion:

Constitutional Law Scholar from Yale delivers the smackdown:

Quote

Congress's powers to impose an income tax, a penalty tax, or an excise tax are unproblematic. The House and Senate versions of the individual mandate are clearly within Congress's powers to tax and spend for the general welfare. Nor are they direct taxes that must be apportioned by state. Under the 16th Amendment taxes on income need not be apportioned no matter what the source of the income; excise and penalty taxes are not taxes on real estate and they are not capitation or "head" taxes, taxes that are levied on the population no matter what they do. Therefore they are not direct taxes within the meaning of the Constitution and existing precedents.

Either the House or the Senate version of the tax is clearly constitutional under existing law. It is not even a close question.

http://balkin.blogsp...s-not-read.html

ETA: or what Shryke just said. Yale Constitutional Scholar >beats> :fencing: Heritage Foundation

[Tempra]

I think I'll go with the guy from Yale rather then the hack from the Heritage Foundation personally.

Shit, I'm pretty sure they just structured it as a Tax and Rebate, which is eminently constitutional.

He is a professor at GULC (Georgetown). The point is, the lawsuit is not without merit. It may eventually be held constitutional (I think it will), but that does not mean its constitutionality should not be tested. To quote Biden, this is a big fucking deal.

ETA: NM Nadie got it.

[alguien]

I think I'll go with the guy from Yale rather then the hack from the Heritage Foundation personally.

Shit, I'm pretty sure they just structured it as a Tax and Rebate, which is eminently constitutional.

Exactly. They enforce it through a tax. Not only that, but you don't have to pay it if:

1. you're too poor to

2. you have religious beliefs that preclude you

3. if you have a family of four and makes less than 88,000 a year, you get help to pay for it.

OMG!!!! They're taking away our FREEEDOMMMMMZZZZ!!!! :commie: :commie: :commie: :commie:

[alguien]

He is a professor at GULC (Georgetown). The point is, the lawsuit is not without merit. It may eventually be held constitutional (I think it will), but that does not mean its constitutionality should not be tested. To quote Biden, this is a big fucking deal.

Tempra, I guess if the mandate is presented as a tax, I don't see what's constitutionally controversial about it.

Maybe you're right and it should be tested, but I also believe those tests will fail.

Honestly, it seems more like political gamemanship that a real attempt to test the law.

But Bachmann and other's vow to repeal even more so, because that has zero chance of happening in the near future.