What do you think, barfo?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,124
Likes
10,973
Points
113
Let's see how this question passes the ol' sphincter test when it comes to constitutionality.

Actually, it's a fairly reasonable question to ask, and she doesn't even answer it.

[video=youtube;DSoWGlyugTo]
 
Let's see how this question passes the ol' sphincter test when it comes to constitutionality.

Actually, it's a fairly reasonable question to ask, and she doesn't even answer it.

She doesn't in that clip, but I don't know what happened after the clip ended, since the subject hadn't been changed.

But anyway, I'm not clear on what hypothetical argument Coburn was making, or asking Kagan to make, for how the commerce clause would be applied in that case, so I have a hard time saying whether I think it would be a reasonable argument. Justice barfo would want to hear the arguments for both sides, rather than just watch a one minute youtube clip, before ruling.

barfo
 
The question is simple.

Can congress pass a law requiring us all to eat 3 vegetables and 2 fruits a day?
 
The question is simple.

Can congress pass a law requiring us all to eat 3 vegetables and 2 fruits a day?

That wasn't the question at all. Of course they can.
The question was whether the court should strike down such a law.

barfo
 
That wasn't the question at all. Of course they can.
The question was whether the court should strike down such a law.

barfo

So what should the Court do in such a case?
 
What do YOU say, barfo?

Present me with the arguments and I'll make a ruling. Otherwise I'm going to have to throw your case out of court and reprimand you for wasting the court's time.

barfo
 
That's Bullshit.

The proposition that govt. can force you to eat something you may not want to is a major encroachment on our individual Liberties. It's a no-brainer.
 
That's Bullshit.

The proposition that govt. can force you to eat something you may not want to is a major encroachment on our individual Liberties. It's a no-brainer.

That's why you aren't a judge.

A couple of minutes of thought will reveal quite a few laws that force you to do something you don't want to do, which have been upheld by the courts.

barfo
 
That's why you aren't a judge.

A couple of minutes of thought will reveal quite a few laws that force you to do something you don't want to do, which have been upheld by the courts.

barfo

Not to your own body.

The laws are more restrictive, like what you CAN'T eat.
 
I think that's Joe Lieberman in the fight.

barfo
 
You didn't even post her full response... It's hard to make a judgement on an incomplete answer.

It's obvious he would segue into a question about the individual mandate in the health insurance reform bill. Unfortunately for Senator Coburn the legal situation around that is a little more complex than telling the American people what to eat. If anyone actually wants to read about the various legal opinions about the mandate check the article below. It's a nice little primer on the topic.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/is-the-health-care-law-unconstitutional/
 
Not to your own body.

The laws are more restrictive, like what you CAN'T eat.

I don't want to wear this fucking seatbelt, it's my own body! I don't want to live anymore and i can't pull the plug, so i'll ask the doctor to do it; it's my own body!
 
That's Bullshit.

oreilly_u_mad1243621879.jpg
 
wouldn't there be a difference between something done on public property and not? I mean, if I hate the seatbelt law, I don't have to drive on roads. On the public train and public bus and public MAX I don't use seatbelts. If I don't want to wear a helmet as I ride my dirtbike on my 10 acres, the police can't come ticket me, right? But if the government is able to regulate what I eat, isn't that stepping over some pretty major constitutional bounds?
 
wouldn't there be a difference between something done on public property and not? I mean, if I hate the seatbelt law, I don't have to drive on roads. On the public train and public bus and public MAX I don't use seatbelts. If I don't want to wear a helmet as I ride my dirtbike on my 10 acres, the police can't come ticket me, right? But if the government is able to regulate what I eat, isn't that stepping over some pretty major constitutional bounds?

Well, and how are they even planning on regulating something like that? Cameras in the house? Eat the required food in front of a certified official? The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and they don't honestly believe they could ever carry it out. There's just no way.
 
I don't want to wear this fucking seatbelt, it's my own body! I don't want to live anymore and i can't pull the plug, so i'll ask the doctor to do it; it's my own body!

Seatbelts don't go IN your body, and you don't have to wear them (just don't drive or ride in a car).
 
Well, and how are they even planning on regulating something like that? Cameras in the house? Eat the required food in front of a certified official? The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and they don't honestly believe they could ever carry it out. There's just no way.

Yes, cameras in the house. Haven't you read 1984?

So what do you think of the police putting up cameras everywhere to monitor for crime?

I oppose it, though I have no problem with the police looking at the security camera tapes obtained from private businesses.
 
NSFW (audio)
[video=youtube;QnJQ9U9pW9Q]
 
I think some of you can't see the forest for the trees. Forcing people to eat something is not actually the issue at all. We don't even know if she eventually answered that question because we weren't provided with the full video.

I think he was asking that question in an attempt to corner her on the healthcare bill. The analogy is flawed though because the bill doesn't force you to buy insurance. If you buy or are provided with insurance you are exempt from the tax.

"The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance." -- Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

"People are exempt from the tax if they get health insurance through their employer or through Medicare, are poor, are dependents, are in the military, live overseas, or have a religious objection."
 
Well, and how are they even planning on regulating something like that? Cameras in the house? Eat the required food in front of a certified official? The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and they don't honestly believe they could ever carry it out. There's just no way.

Enforcement isn't the issue, curtailing our freedoms is. Like it or not, I have the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle if that's my choice. It may be suboptimal, but if I did so, it's my decision, not the government's.
 
I think some of you can't see the forest for the trees. Forcing people to eat something is not actually the issue at all. We don't even know if she eventually answered that question because we weren't provided with the full video.

I think he was asking that question in an attempt to corner her on the healthcare bill. The analogy is flawed though because the bill doesn't force you to buy insurance. If you buy or are provided with insurance you are exempt from the tax.

"The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance." -- Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

"People are exempt from the tax if they get health insurance through their employer or through Medicare, are poor, are dependents, are in the military, live overseas, or have a religious objection."

Are those people then provided with health insurance? Yes they are. Against their will.

A mandate is a mandate, no matter how you dress it up.
 
Like it or not, I have the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle if that's my choice. It may be suboptimal, but if I did so, it's my decision, not the government's.

NO YOU DONT!! MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR INSURANCE BILL IF YOU GET FAT AND HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR DIABETES!! IT DOESN'T JUST AFFECT YOU!!




do i need to put this in green?
 
"People are exempt from the tax if they get health insurance through their employer or through Medicare, are poor, are dependents, are in the military, live overseas, or have a religious objection."

There's a tax I can avoid via religious objection? SWEET! Are there any other taxes I can avoid because God told me not to pay them?
 
NO YOU DONT!! MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR INSURANCE BILL IF YOU GET FAT AND HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR DIABETES!! IT DOESN'T JUST AFFECT YOU!!




do i need to put this in green?

I'd prefer it in green over allcaps, thanks. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top