Jump to content


the war on terror and obamacare: mirror images


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Azazello1313

Azazello1313

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,951 posts
  • Location:colorado

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:56 PM

interesting editorial.


Quote

As policies, Obamacare and George W. Bush’s war on terror have almost nothing in common. They do not address the same subject matter.

Yet from the Supreme Court’s perspective, they pose practically the same question: How much more authority over individuals can the federal government assume, consistent with the Founders’ notion of limited and enumerated powers?
During the 20th century, the court stretched that concept to accommodate the rise of both a large domestic regulatory and welfare apparatus and of a permanent military and intelligence establishment. That seemed necessary and proper in view of the social problems of a modern urban society and the external threats of Nazism and communism.

In fact, the welfare state and the national security state grew up together. The New Deal’s twin was World War II; the Great Society accompanied the Cold War. The federal government’s expansion has protected us from old age, poverty and external threats — while burdening us with taxes, bureaucracy and a certain amount of official snooping.

The Bush administration took Sept. 11, 2001, as an opportunity to win additional national security powers for the federal government. The Obama administration saw the Great Recession as an opportunity for a New Deal-like expansion of health care and other domestic programs.

Consequently, the court has had to decide whether to allow further growth of the national security state and the welfare state — or to push back, lest these twin leviathans smother individual freedom.
...
The Bush administration lawyers argued that the Supreme Court could trust the executive branch not to abuse its war powers because the voters could elect a different president if it did. Last week, Verrilli argued that the Medicaid provisions of the 2010 health-reform law will not coerce the states, because “political constraints do operate to protect federalism in this area.”

Just as the Bush administration insisted that the war on terror was a new and unique kind of war, the Obama administration assures the court that the health-care market is unlike any other.

And now a conservative-led majority on the court may strike down Obama’s individual mandate, just as a liberal-led majority struck down Bush’s military tribunals. If so, law professor Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, “this will be the second consecutive presidency in which the Supreme Court imposed significant limits on the primary agenda of the sitting President in ways that were unexpected based on precedents at the time the President acted.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in the majority when the court reined in Bush, and his questions at oral argument last week suggested that he has misgivings about the scope of the health-care-reform law, too.

Kennedy’s mistrust of unlimited government, it seems, knows no limits.

read the whole thing

#2 CaP'N GRuNGe

CaP'N GRuNGe

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,635 posts
  • Location:N, S, E, & W of Baghdad
  • Fan of the:Vikings

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:30 PM

Im ready for SCOTUS to throw the whole thing out and start over.

#3 LordOpie

LordOpie

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 19,085 posts
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:TWO WHEELS -- motorcycles and all kinds of bicycles. <br />TWO PLANKS -- alpine and xc skiing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:46 PM

As long as the POTUS can enact any and every EO he wants and Congress remains impotent, then the SCOTUS has the obligation to limit.

#4 SEC=UGA

SEC=UGA

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,970 posts
  • Location:Marietta, GA
  • Interests:My colon and anus. No need to lecture me Chargerz, no need...
  • Fan of the:No Team Selected

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:24 AM

View PostLordOpie, on 03 April 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

As long as the POTUS can enact any and every EO he wants and Congress remains impotent, then the SCOTUS has the obligation to limit.

According to our President, it would be "unprecedented" for the SCOUTUS to over turn a law that was "overwhelmingly" passed by a "democratically elected" congress...


Quote

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Edited by SEC=UGA, 04 April 2012 - 07:28 AM.


#5 wiegie

wiegie

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,684 posts
  • Fan of the:Rams

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:39 AM

View PostCaP, on 03 April 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Im ready for SCOTUS to throw the whole thing out and start over.
serious question:  what would you have them replace it with?

#6 SEC=UGA

SEC=UGA

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,970 posts
  • Location:Marietta, GA
  • Interests:My colon and anus. No need to lecture me Chargerz, no need...
  • Fan of the:No Team Selected

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:43 AM

View Postwiegie, on 04 April 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

serious question:  what would you have them replace it with?

Serious answer... A picture of margaret thatcher getting oral from benito mussolini, while wearing a hitler mustache, while stalin is shooting video of it.

#7 Azazello1313

Azazello1313

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,951 posts
  • Location:colorado

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:11 AM

View Postwiegie, on 04 April 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

serious question: what would you have them replace it with?

chaos and thinly veiled radical social darwinism.  :oops:

#8 tosberg34

tosberg34

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Fan of the:Packers

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:00 PM

View PostCaP, on 03 April 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Im ready for SCOTUS to throw the whole thing out and start over.

Me too.

#9 Pope Flick

Pope Flick

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13,741 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • Fan of the:Bears

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:38 AM

Yeah, let's bring back preexisting condition exclusion rules. Those are the bomb! And making it impossible for kids to get insurance if theyre  born with issues and live more than a few years with them. Those are even better!!

#10 Yukon Cornelius

Yukon Cornelius

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,465 posts
  • Location:island of misfits
  • Interests:Pissing off the radical right!
  • Fan of the:Vikings

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:42 AM

View PostPope Flick, on 05 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Yeah, let's bring back preexisting condition exclusion rules. Those are the bomb! And making it impossible for kids to get insurance if theyre  born with issues and live more than a few years with them. Those are even better!!
yah i just love that part.... dont worry the churches will take care of them all...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users