U.S. Politics - ACA is now official edition

[Shryke]

Fez,

So, let's toss all the provisions of the Constitution (including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and a ban on the State establishing a religion) because some of the people who negotiated and then wrote it owned slaves? That seems a tad rash to me. That said I've got no beef with a movement to start over.

What I object to own pretending the limits in the Constiution are meaningless. If those limits are all fuzzy then the structural limits are worthless and we really should toss the pretense of a limited government.

I think it's more that there are two kinds of things set down in the Constitution in most people's minds.

Basic rights (ie - freedom of speech, all people are equal [eventually :p], freedom of religion, etc) and things that establish process (ie - there is a senate, the federal government can only do X, elections are always on Y day, etc). And many people would not consider group #2 as all that sacred. Or, simply, I doubt Fez wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As Raidne said last thread (don't know if she believes it, but many do), the Commerce Clause is something that has been very broadly interpreted because without that the US can't function in any way that would be recognizable to you or I. It's a kludge solution to the problem of running a government based off a very old document that was written in a time that bears little relation to today.

[Fez]

Fez,

So, let's toss all the provisions of the Constitution (including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and a ban on the State establishing a religion) because some of the people who negotiated and then wrote it owned slaves? That seems a tad rash to me. That said I've got no beef with a movement to start over.

What I object to own pretending the limits in the Constiution are meaningless. If those limits are all fuzzy then the structural limits are worthless and we really should toss the pretense of a limited government.

I agree. The only limit on government should be what the current electorate wants that limit to be (along with the standard basic individual rights). If something's good policy, why should it matter if its unprecedented?

[The Progressive]

Good chart on the ACA:

http://healthreform....800&h=1020&as=1

I have now knowledged your asses.

Thanks for linking to this very informative and handy chart.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

Then you need movement to toss the Constitution. I believe it should be revisited even if I disagree with your goals. I like structural limits on government power. The idea that a majority can decide all people with blond hair should be imprisoned and the only thing to prevent that being people's "good nature" makes me profoundly uncomfortable. There are too many times in history where the "majority" has decided to do some pretty horrendous things. As such I like having limits on how that majorty may employ the power of the State.

[Fez]

Fez,

Then you need movement to toss the Constitution. I believe it should be revisited even if I disagree with your goals. I like structural limits on government power. The idea that a majority can decide all people with blond hair should be imprisoned and the only thing to prevent that being people's "good nature" makes me profoundly uncomfortable. There are too many times in history where the "majority" has decided to do some pretty horrendous things. As such I like having limits on how that majorty may employ the power of the State.

Hence my "standard basic individual rights" comments. I believe people have rights, not institutions. Why should one intangible object (a state) have any protections from another intangible object (the federal government), if the people have shown, through their choice of elected representatives, that they don't want that protection to exist?

I know what the Constitution says, and that it is the law of land; its just stupid that it is though imo.

[DanteGabriel]

I look forward to the headlines, "American Conservatives deported from Canada" and "Canadians fed up with Illegal Americans, demand fence and tighter border controls."

I really hope the Mounties start profiling for white people with Confederate flag stickers or "Nobama" stickers on their cars. Maybe Canada could institute spelling tests at the border: to legally enter Canada, you would have to spell words like "armour" and "colour" correctly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

I'm talking about individuals. I, frankly, prefer State Government because they are ostensibly closer to the elctorate than the Federal Government. This is not to say State Governments are not steaming piles of dog crap too. Their just smaller piles.

[TerraPrime]

You know, I would have guessed it'd be Arizona that would spawn shit like this. But I guess Michigan is tired of being usurped in the national spotlight? Go figure.

[DanteGabriel]

You know, I would have guessed it'd be Arizona that would spawn shit like this. But I guess Michigan is tired of being usurped in the national spotlight? Go figure.

Not surprising -- Michigan is infested with militia-minded yokels. Arizonans are content to leave all violent retrograde dumbfuckery to their police forces.

[Fez]

Fez,

I'm talking about individuals. I, frankly, prefer State Government because they are ostensibly closer to the elctorate than the Federal Government. This is not to say State Governments are not steaming piles of dog crap too. Their just smaller piles.

And I believe there should be an enshrined bill of rights that protects individual rights, but why enshrine process? More importantly, why say what government can do when you never know what the future might bring? Why not instead say what government can't do, since you know what you don't want to have happen, and outside that allow government to act and react however experts and the electorate think best?

As for state governments, its far too easy for them to act parochially or be dominated by special interests; its too small a pond. The bigger and wider a government is, the harder it becomes for it to be dominated and the more fair and impartial it is.

[Shryke]

You know, I would have guessed it'd be Arizona that would spawn shit like this. But I guess Michigan is tired of being usurped in the national spotlight? Go figure.

It's even funnier when you consider this is the same state where the state government can just dissolve local democracy.

[Arlingzen Bill]

I really hope the Mounties start profiling for white people with Confederate flag stickers or "Nobama" stickers on their cars. Maybe Canada could institute spelling tests at the border: to legally enter Canada, you would have to spell words like "armour" and "colour" correctly.

Man might as well throw in labour... reading the Economist really effed up my spelling.

Will there now be roving bands of Canadians hunting redneck border crossers?

[The Progressive]

Not surprising -- Michigan is infested with militia-minded yokels.

Lol, I can't wait to see the days when ATF goes waco on these traitors.

[Arlingzen Bill]

You know, I would have guessed it'd be Arizona that would spawn shit like this. But I guess Michigan is tired of being usurped in the national spotlight? Go figure.

I have a friend from HS that posted a partial quote about watering the tree of liberty on Facebook. I commented to him that he should be careful what he wishes for because once bullets start flying, you no longer control the outcome. Conservative businessmen need to wonder where the disaffected are going to strike locally once it goes to hell... hint it isn't likely to be someone with nothing...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

And the bigger it is the more impersonal it is meaning that it wants to deal with individualized or highly localized problems with systemic solutions, bureacracy, and restrictions on individual freedoms. That is problematic in my opinion and why I prefer smaller government.

Also, you do realise that the phrase "Congress shall make no law... " is a prohibition to "prosess", right? It's not an instruction to the government to "protect the freedom of speech" it is a restriction on Government's ability to act against that freedom.

[DanteGabriel]

Man might as well throw in labour... reading the Economist really effed up my spelling.

Will there now be roving bands of Canadians hunting redneck border crossers?

I hope so, complete with an "Igloo city" prison camp with brutal conditions in which to incarcerate suspected border-runners. I'm sure Deathwalker would support that as well.

[The Progressive]

Scot,

Seems to me that local tyranny is much more problematic and has a more imminent impact on our life than your federal government bogeyman.

I mean wasn't it you who were lamenting the fact that some cities has banned transfat/fois gras/soda recently?

[Jaime L]

You know, I would have guessed it'd be Arizona that would spawn shit like this. But I guess Michigan is tired of being usurped in the national spotlight? Go figure.

I'm terrified of the day when we're standing in our long government-mandated lines to buy Vizio TVs and we think back on this moment and wonder aloud "why didn't we do more to help the Michigan militia when we had the chance?!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

No.

[Fez]

Fez,

And the bigger it is the more impersonal it is meaning that it wants to deal with individualized or highly localized problems with systemic solutions, bureacracy, and restrictions on individual freedoms. That is problematic in my opinion and why I prefer smaller government.

Also, you do realise that the phrase "Congress shall make no law... " is a prohibition to "prosess", right? It's not an instruction to the government to "protect the freedom of speech" it is a restriction on Government's ability to act against that freedom.

Just because people say that doesn't make it true. Its very rare for actual agents of the federal government to do anything at all outside of administrative work (and military and veteran issues); its almost always contracted out. And while that money comes with some strings, its usually pretty broad and says things like "use evidence-based/best practices". And if the contractors are too big to really get at some of the detailed work, they'll subcontract it out to regional organizations. Its really quite easy for the federal government to engage at the local or individual level (just look at how successfully it runs Medicare), and this only becomes easier as information technology continues to improve.

I do know what the first amendment says, and I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make. Sure its an example of what the government can't do, and I'm saying I want more of that and less of "The congress shall have the power".