Friday, November 13, 2009
Time to Call Sen. Webb's Office?
According to Bryan Scrafford at Left of the Hill, "Webb said that he has committed to proceeding with debate. What was very noticeable, however, was the fact that he didn’t say he’d definitely be voting for cloture." If that's the case, then it looks like it might be time for all of us to start contacting his office and (politely but firmly) urging him to read the bill, then to vote for it assuming it contains a robust public option and other features that most of us are looking for in a health care reform bill (e.g., preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of "preeexisting conditions"). In addition, it goes without saying that Senator Webb (and Senator Warner) should vote for "cloture." That shouldn't even a question, frankly, nor is the concept that bills pass when they get a majority of votes (that would be 51 the last I checked, not 60) in the U.S. Senate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Done. I am getting really sick of Virginia "Democrats" these days.
Webb did spend a lot of time with Creigh Deeds (aka, "not an Obama Democrat") the past few weeks. Let's hope none of it rubbed off!!!
One thing to ask Senator Webb, where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to mandate people to buy health insurance? Answer, it doesn't. I am all for reform but, forcing people to buy something they may not want is unconstitutional.
I'm hesitant to even respond to "LeeHinAlexandria," because he's so obviously a "troll," but here's a question: do you also oppose laws that require people to buy car insurance or private mortgage insurance or any other kind of insurance? And yes, of course the Constitution authorizes all these things...you know, something about promoting the general welfare?
"do you also oppose laws that require people to buy car insurance or private mortgage insurance or any other kind of insurance? "
Those are state laws, not federal laws.
As for your reference to 'general welfare'...
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action," and that the "federal government has never required people to buy any goods or services as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
So I ask you again, where in the Constituion does it allow Congress to mandate that a person MUST purchase health insurance as a condition of lawful residence?
As for being a troll, I am a Constitutional, Independent, Conservative who has voted for candidates in both parties.
If you like, we can have a debate here, or you can certainly email me anytime @ redalexandriava at gmail dot com.
Lee:
How about all the other mandatory federal requirements on individuals that are not specifically spelled out in the constitution:
Social security
Federal income tax
Selective service (which is still law but not implemented except for the requirement of registration)
It seems that you may not be aware of at least the last 75 years of constitutional case law by the U. S. Supreme Court expanding the general welfare clause provision of the constitution.
However, I bet you have no similar problem agreeing with the over 100 year old case law expanding the 14th Amendment status of persons to corporational entities.
Lowell,
One has to remember that Congress has been operating far outside the bounds of the Constitution since the Civil War ended 100+ years ago.
That said, why is Social Security mandatory? It is a failed liberal policy, first developed by Bismarcke, and instituted by FDR.
Why has it failed?
In the beginning there were 42 people paying into Social Security for every retiree, now that ratio is less than 2-1. There was a recent CBO projection that shows because of outrageous spending (on both sides of the aisle), Social Security is now going broke as early as next year instead of 2017.
Income tax was initially designed to be temporary as a way for the Govt to recoup the extraordinary expenditures during WWI. However, thanks to Speaker Cannon's ineptness, Democrats regained control of Congress in these years and turned the Revenue Act of 1913 into a permanent measure (see the 16th Amendment).
As for selective service, as a veteran, I have no problem with young men or women signing up for the military. In fact, more young men & women should do so.
As for the years of the constitutional case law, lets not forget that once FDR came into power, he packed the courts at all levels after his reelection in 1936.
Roosevelt saw his victory as an opportunity to confront the US Supreme Court, then the last bastion of conservatism. In 1935 the high court had invalidated the NIRA and in 1936 the AAA. FDR was acutely aware that the court could well invalidate the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two pillars of his New Deal legislation.
This is how the 1937 opinions on Social Security came about. The court system has gone downhill ever since.
Not sure what you mean about 'expanding the 14th amendment status', but I will tell you that the 14th amendment is where the equal protection clause resides. I, as a Conservative, see big problems when you impose hate crimes legislation on one body of folks and you don't reciprocate for the other folks. Hate crime legislation is a serious violation of the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection all ALL persons under the law.
yeah, and how about that draft that got me in '68. bastards!
Lee:
Apparently you have a reading problem (I am not Lowell), as well as being factually challenged:
"As for the years of the constitutional case law, lets not forget that once FDR came into power, he packed the courts at all levels after his reelection in 1936."
First, the Roosevelt proposal to pack the
U. S. Supreme Court did not occur until 1938 and failed because of opposition largely from conservative Democrats. The Republican-controlled Supreme Court of the 1920s to the early 1940s (as one constitutional scholar, Mr. Dooley, has said) "read the results of the election of 1936" and began to moderate their votes. They never recovered their prestige after the Schecter (sick chicken) case. I might add that my constitutional law professor in graduate school was member of the conservative Dulles family.
You apparently stopped reading your GOP talking points after the 1936 election discussion part. Roosevelt did not have to really confront the Supreme Court after 1936, as the ultra-conservative justices recognized that the political handwriting was on the wall and modified their judicial behavior accordingly. The death of one of those justices in 1937 (Willis Vandevanter, I believe) also was helpful.
I could recommend several good constitutional history books for you to read, but they would probably destroy most of your closely-held and deeply-cherished beliefs.
As a veteran (who enlisted for four years rather than waiting for the draft), I noticed that you avoided any discussion of the Selective Service law, which under your legal theory should be even worse than requiring someone to buy health care insurance as it requires persons so affected to not only to give their services and lives to the government but to surrender a number of their constitutional rights under the UCMJ. Some opponents of the draft have likened it to a form of slavery.
I love the draft, partly because it exposes the hypocrisy of the Republicans and Libertarians who trumpet their allegedly superior patriotism while (while diminishing the service of patriotic Democrats) and using all possible means to avoid service to their country in times of war (i.e. Dick Cheney, George W,. Bush, Newt Gingrich. Tom Tancredo, ad infinitum). Nice bunch of real patriots that you constitutional conservatives consort with!
Apparently, you are also unfamiliar with the late 19th century Santa Clara case under which the Supreme Court gave corporations the status of persons under guise of the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
I think you might also want to read the actual CBO report (not the Boehner talking points) about when the so-called Social Security Trust Fund (which does not actually exist) actually does run out of money.
As for hate crimes legislation -- which is off topic of this thread -- you may be surprised that I am not a fan (as a civil libertarian) of legislation that imposes higher penalties for hate crimes. I do believe that hate crimes are a violation of the 14th Amendment. I also am not a fan of legislation that imposes higher penalties on persons who injure or kill public safety personnel as that also violates the equal protection clause.
Sorry about the mixup, I realized it later Tom.
As for talking about FDR, I was mainly referring to FDR getting to Justice Roberts in the mid-30's who then abandoned his Conservative principles when Justice Roberts started becoming the court's 'swing' vote on many issues much like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy have become lately. You are right though that the full-on assault on the court by the liberals (FDR) did not start until 1938. FDR infact, tried to start it a year earlier and failed (can't remember the legislation's name).
As for constitutional books, three of my favorite are: Sources in American Constitutional History, Thurgood Marsahll: An American Revolutionary, and a great book by Edward White on Oliver Wendel Holmes (the name escapes me right now).
As for the selective service system, I think that more young people should enter the military. As a young rebelious teen, the military gave me fantastic discipline.
As for giving up a person's rights under the UCMJ, I am not 100% familiar with everything in the UCMJ but as a veteran, I can tell you that you are given quite a number of rights under it. When you sign the oath of enlistment you agree to abide by the UCMJ.
As for the CBO report, I have read the actual report which was given to legislators in summer of this year.
You are right when you say the Social Security Trust Fund doesn't actually exist (which I never said existed), it's actually the OASI and DI funds which are managed by the Treasury.
According to the report, the situation at Social Security is much worse than the current administration and Democrats in Congress want to admit. According to the data, if they are going to reform it, they better do it soon.
According to the report, in 2010-2011, payments will exceed income, then from 2012-2015, the fund has surpluses. However, according to the report, deficits return in 2016 and accelerate every year after that. What complicates the figures is that now, since the current recession began, more folks have decided to retire. How will that affect the funds?
Seniors hopefully will still get their checks, but those checks will increasingly come from the general fund and not revenues from Social Security payments. At this point, one wonders when Social Security becomes a Ponzi scheme (ala Bernie Madoff), and who will be President when it blows up.
As for the Santa Clara case you reference, I am not familiar with that case and will have to read up on it.
Lee:
The title of the FDR court packing bill was the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1937" which I should have noted was FDR's initial shot across the bow of the Supreme Court.
You say ". . . . I am not 100% familiar with everything in the UCMJ but as a veteran, I can tell you that you are given quite a number of rights under it." I hate to break the news to you, but it is the constitution that is your source of rights; the UCMJ gives you no rights; rather when you sign it, it limits the rights you already had.
I noticed that for the second time you failed to deal with the fact that the Selective Service Act (like the proposed congressional health care insurance bills) also is a mandatory imposition upon an individual's rights/liberties that you so decry. A true "constitutionalist" would be consistent in applying his most basic principles. You don't get to chose and pick among when you apply such principles and still claim to be a "Constitutionalist".
Tom:
I was trying to come at it from the standpoint that although the UCMJ is not perfect (I think it was developed in the 50's), I found the military to be very fair. Does it grant you all the liberties under the Constitution? No. Is that fair? Yes. Because I chose to sign the pledge to abide by the UCMJ and defend our country.
The Constitution, although one of the most beautifully written documents in human history, is an imperfect document as well. The difference between liberals/progressives and Conservatives is that where the Constitution is silent, liberals, especially the current Democratic leadership, want to impose their will on the populace. Conservatives think you have the right to decide what happens and speak up.
As for the selective service act in general, personally, I think that is a good idea and would like to see more young men and women enlist. If they did, would we have many of the problems we do now with the young people in this country? I think they would be reduced.
In reality, conservatives want to "impose their will on the populace" in a wide variety of areas, from what you do in the bedroom to control over your own body to a gazillion other areas. The big difference between conservatives and progressives is that the former believe in a pinched, restrictive, harsh, narrow, static reading of the constitution, while progressives believe in an expansive interpretation that lives up to the highest ideals of the founding fathers, works to expand opportunity to all Americans, and grows along with human knowledge (scientific, etc.) and understanding.
Post a Comment