|
|
|
| |
|
Commentsi did not say that without obamacare millions wouild go without healthcare. i said that with or without the affordable care act; millions in this country will go without adequate healthcare. again you assume more than you should because i disagree with parts of your view of the constitution. because of that, you make personal attacks about what you assume is my view of the world. your views on nullification are one take - certainly not the only take; it was contentious 200 years ago too - and for good reason, in terms of effective government, it may create more problems than it solves. you say you refuse to encourage oligarchical machinations; yet your article gives the governors of 26 states the right to declare the affordable care act nullified for all of their subjects? you merely replaced one oligarchy for another. the problem is not whether the affordable care act is constitutional; the problem is that affordable care doesn't exist for millions in america.Posted by dennis on 03/27 at 12:21 PM | # In answer to Dennis saying that if Obamacare does not continue millions will be without care, then if it is that important, use the proper procedures, and give the government the authority through the amendment process - rather than forcing it illegally. Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs on 03/27 at 02:58 AM | # It has been my experience that if someone argues against the States' rights regarding the Constitution, then the person believes in a stronger federal government. It is the States, after all, that are supposed to be the ultimate check against the federal government. As for nullification, the answer is obvious in Article VI (Supremacy Clause) where it states that only laws made pursuant the U.S. Constitution are the supreme law of the land, which means all other laws are unconstitutional, or more accuratley, illegal. Therefore, the States have a right to reject, or ignore, those illegal laws. That is nullificaiton. I only brought up Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution because it is a fantastic explanation of what nullification is. Of course I wasn't saying that it is legally binding in the sense of the Constitution, but that it is a good explanation. Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs on 03/27 at 02:42 AM | # you make more assumptions about what i believe than you should. you also, like mitt romney, should be a little less willing to bet on what i believe until you know me better; if you had been foolish enough to put $10,000 up like mitt; i would be a happy and richer camper. what i do believe is that, while you and other constitutional experts on both sides of this issue try to impress people about how smart you are; rome is burning. oh, and about the shame on you line - it really doesn't work - it is the adult equivalent of taking your toys and going home. Posted by Dennis on 03/26 at 10:42 PM | # so I take it you support a government that does not remain limited to the express powers granted to it by the Constitution (and therefore by the States), and would rather see it become a government that controls the populace through dictatorial mandates. Did you ever consider why it takes 3/4 ratification by the States for an amendment? I suppose you agree with the 17th Amendment, too, right? I am sorry, Sir, but I refuse to encourage such oligarchical machinations. You, Sir, I am willing to bet, approve of Alexander Hamilton's philosophies. I am thinking Rousseau's General Will, too, right? Are you a big fan of John Marshall, too? To shame. Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs on 03/26 at 03:22 PM | # you realize of course that - regardless of how the supreme court rules on the affordable care act and regardless of whether or not it is subquently repealed or rolled back - millions of americans will still go without adequate healthcare and some will die because of this, the costs of healthcare in america will continue to explode, and regardless of whether or not you have healthcare insurance, a major medical event could bankrupt you. these things are true in texas and new york, whether you believe in nullification or not, whether you're rich or poor, and whether you are republican, democrat, libertarian, tea partier, wall streeter, or wall street protestor. those who lie dying unnecessarily and penniless probably don't regard questions of constitutionality as very important. Posted by dennis on 03/26 at 12:59 PM | # that you choose to use the kentucky resolution as a basis for your comment confirms what i said earlier. the kentucky resolution, while having support in some quarters, was opposed by many of the framers of the constitution and, to the best of my knowledge, is not a part of the constitution - although it is indeed drug out whenever a person whose preferred political bias is not currently in power at the federal level suddenly decides to wax enloquently about constitutionality and states' rights. most of those voices are silent, however, when right leaning federal level politicos assault freedoms. as i said before, your constitutional interpretation is transient and determined by your bias - much like that of your hero, thomas jefferson. Posted by dennis on 03/26 at 12:20 PM | # In reality, Sir, the writings of the founders fully support my perception. Nullification, for example, is explained quite well in Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution. Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs on 03/26 at 04:27 AM | # Coming Supreme Court Clash Over ObamacarePosted by Douglas V. Gibbs on Mar 19, 2012 at 09:15 AM
States Rights, Nullification, Judicial Review As we march toward the day that the United States Supreme Court takes on the Obamacare case, it has become pretty clear that the whole decision is going to come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia are commonly referred to as the conservative judges, and all of them, including Kennedy, were appointed by Republican Presidents. Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are considered to be liberal judges, and were appointed by Democrats. Kennedy’s decision to rule with the conservatives, or the liberals, changes from ruling to ruling. More...Post a Comment on: Coming Supreme Court Clash Over ObamacareCommenting is not available in this channel entry. Next entries comments: Government Increasingly Set as Only Source of “True Knowledge” Previous entries comments: Winthrop, Northcentral Washington Note from the Editor: This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com. Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege. |
|
