President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 23, 2010 12:40 AM UTC
104 Comments
This guy has way too much time on his hands since nobody’s running against him.
Dissenting Democrats factual reactions to this bill get more revealing every hour…
http://www.aolnews.com/healthc…
with more sobbing than a Lissi Crying Doll.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0038…
Right now this loser is probably thinking:
“How can this be a democracy when Republicans don’t win every time on every issue? My God why have you forsaken your anointed ones and left them to have to deal with getting their butts kicked by better parliamentarians? Sob sob. How can I face my children and broach the subject that in this democracy Republicans don’t always win? Quick get the guns so we can reestablish a democracy where Republicans win every time even if it is at the point of gun. God I’m can’t wait for democracy to start again when Republicans are back in complete power.”
If you ask him he’ll tell you what a great patriot and defender of democracy he is.
Luckily for you we’ll only realize our premiums got jacked by 40%+ or services rationed after the election.
that you don’t think we can provide health care cover for 32 million more people. I guess you don’t really believe in American ingenuity or the effectiveness of the private insurance industry. But you were dead set opposed to a public option. I personally think it a shame that you believe the greatest health care system in the world can’t handle the inclusion of the poor. Such an elitist. Thankfully Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have more faith in our institutions and the American people than you do.
He is all about his rates being raised and the potential rationing of that liposuction operation that he needs. The fact that insurance companies are already raising rates 20-30-40% is overlooked along with the reality that 45 million people who are currently priced out of health care market are already getting their health care rationed. “It’s all about me” is the modern day Republican mantra. What frauds to the American dream that we are all equal in the sight of God and should be good neighbors to each other.
I know, cause that’s where I’m from. That’s why I live in Colorado. (Still a Steeler fan though)
Sorry I could not resist
Did you write that one yourself, or did you pick it up during one of your World Of Warcraft chats, trying to score an orc wife?
Cucumber Cool Martini
By The Denver Post
Ingredients
1 1/2 ounce cucumber simple syrup (recipe follows)
1/2 ounce fresh-squeezed lemon juice
4 ounces vodka
4 basil leaves
Peeled cucumber slice for garnish
Kosher salt
Directions
In a martini shaker, add a few ice cubes, the basil, the lemon juice and the cucumber syrup. With a wooden pestle, muddle the basil with other ingredients. Fill the shaker with more ice cubes, add the vodka and shake well. Strain the liquid into a chilled martini glass; garnish with a slice of cucumber coated in salt.
Cucumber syrup: Peel 1 large cucumber. Cut off the ends, cut into chunks and blend in a blender. Pass through a cheesecloth and chill. In a small pot, whisk together 1/2 cup sugar and 1/4 cup water. Bring to a boil and chill. Add 1 part of syrup to 2 parts cucumber puree and chill until ready to use. Makes about 2 cups.
That sounds deadly. Delish but deadly.
Even with RealLemon juice, not fresh squoze.
The recipe says it’s for ONE drink; 4 ounces of Vodka!
That is the first measuring line on the gin martini measuring glass.
But now I’m a recovering asshole.
But now I’m a recovering asshole.
OMG.
We’re in a terrible budget crisis and this bozo is going to incur legal expenses to battle windmills?
We should demand to know how much he intends to spend and see if the Legislature can stop it.
…there’s PILES of money hidden underneath the floorboards of the State Capitol Bldg! Well, at least in terms of “excess salary” and “unused funds.”
The Guv needs to demand how Suthers is going to pay for this, AND how much it’s probably going to cost before he gets on board the Crazy Train…
Talk about crazy train…”All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!”
You’re just lucky that the insured won’t get their annual adjustment until after the Nov election…so, you thought that 40% from Anthem in CA was bad…”All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!”
How do opponents of federally mandated health insurance coverage square their position with the fact that most, if not all, states mandate automobile insurance coverage for drivers? Is their argument a states-rights claim, or do they base the difference on the premise that driving is a “privilege” as opposed to a “right”?
Seems to be the GOP position that States can mandate it, but not the Feds. And with the current tilt on the Supreme Court, you can’t discount their chances at this point.
There actually is a pretty big difference between the states’ ability to regulate behavior and the federal governments ability to do the same.
For non-economic activities, the modern court has said that there must be a direct and substantial link to commerce in order for Congress to claim authority to act under the commerce clause (I assume this is how the health-care bill seeks authority). Basically it asks if there is a market attached to the activity/goods in contention. The question is whether there is a market attached to buying health insurance, which seems pretty obvious that it does.
Until (relatively) recently, most people thought that the Commerce Power had no limits, but a few SCOTUS cases since 1995 have made people rethink that proposition.
A little more to add to it.
States are given the police powers, which have traditionally been defined as the ability to regulation for the health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizens. The police powers are though to be plenary unless otherwise specifically restricted through some other constitutional restriction (i.e. equal protection, substantive due process, incorporated Bill of Rights, etc.). If not restricted by the Constitution, states generally only need to show that their regulation is rationally related to a legitimate state interest (which is quite simple to do.)
Now, the federal government, they are not given such wide open powers, but rather must act within their enumerated powers (i.e. see Article I Section 8, or the enactment clause of the 14th Amendment). The most common federal power used is the power to regulate interstate commerce. While this has been limited in the recent Lopez and Morrison decisions, I don’t see how Suther’s argument holds any weight here.
If a person doesn’t buy insurance, he is correct in saying that they have not placed themselves in the stream of commerce. But, it is amply documented that the care of individuals without insurance presents a substantial burden on the condition of the overall health care system. Surely, a good argument could be made that the impact of these non-insured have a substantial impact on interstate commerce by means of their impact on the overall system. If donating wheat to the 4H Club was enough of an impact under Wickard v. Filburn, then there is more than enough here to carry the day on healthcare.
All that said, I still think this bill is a pile of crap, but I don’t think the best use of limited tax dollars is the pursuit of a weak legal challenge. At best, it seems the strategy is to do enough to get an injunction, hold this up in the Courts until after the November elections, and then repeal it before it has a chance to take effect.
+1
As I recall, the mandate is structured as a tax, and you get a pass on the tax if you buy insurance. It is well established that the feds can give tax breaks to encourage behavior.
He was always part of the “sue the feds if healthcare passes” cabal.
Maybe someone smarter than me can tell me which part of the Colorado constitution allows him to do this unilaterally?
… it’s probably in there someplace.
But defunding the AG’s office (or in particular, this little escapade) is also likely within the realm of the legislature.
Be fun to try at least.
But the statute is ambiguous.
millions of tax dollars during the 2nd Great Recession. We’re how many $$$$ in the hole in our state budget at this point and Suthers chooses to spend our time and dime on this? I get that there are lots of folks out there that don’t like this bill but this is bordering on the ridiculous.
I’m guessing it’s somewhere on the border between ridiculous and utter insanity. Almost every legal scholar, conservative and otherwise, has already opined that this (10th Amendment argument) is highly settled law in the eyes of the court system, and not on the side of these 12 partisan loonies wasting state budget dollars tilting at political windmills.
while they are at it. They could knock off health care reform and federal taxes all at the same time. What a coup that would be. Any bets the Democrats didn’t foresee this happening and already know how they are going to respond? You think the Democratic leadership is going to be caught off guard by this challenge? My impression last night was that the Democratic tacticians were way ahead of the Republicans in legislative maneuvering. This is a Hail Mary attempt by the Republicans and the legislation will be law before this thing gets through the courts.
asking him not to do this. If you want him to stop, please do the same.
Attorney.General@state.co.us
303-866-4500
and was briefly happy that Suthers wasn’t one of the original Attorneys General in this effort. “Thank the Maker,” I thought, “at last an elected Republican who’s not a complete moron and an asshole.”
Hopefully I won’t make that mistake again.
BUT… check out what Washington’s governor, Christine Gregoire (D), has to say about Washington’s AG, Rob McKenna (R), being party to this lawsuit:
Now, that’s taking a stand. There’s even a hint that she will actually become party to the lawsuit, opposite her state’s own AG.
So if the AG’s succeed, and after that travesty of a judgment that gave businesses unlimited access to politicians it may happen, what does this mean for Social Security and Medicare, which are a forced tax on each citizen. I am not sure but wouldn’t saying this is unconstitutional make those programs unconstitutional also. I would love to see the AG’s try to explain why they eliminated Social Security and Medicare. Grandma storming the AG’s office, wow that would make a great picture.
and even though the bill didn’t go as far as I would have liked (I wanted single payer), at least I feel like my country has elevated itself into that league of nations that recognize the right of all its citizens to have access to health care, just not the privileged, and in doing so acknowledges the dignity and worth of every citizen.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear
No one here spoke to the legal question and instead spoke to the emotional question of why this bill is needed. But the important question is the legal question – is this a valid action for Congress to take at a federal level creating an individual mandate.
I hope Aggie is right that the way it is structured will easily pass judicial review. But if there is a legit question here, then you can’t ping Suthers for asking that question. (Well you can, but it’s legit for him to do so in that case.)
But of course any legal challenge has to be on a point of law, just as an appeal in any civil case is (de novo excepted).
You can debate the commerce clause and 10th amendment all you want. The Constitution also says in the preamble “to provide for the general welfare”, so I for one think establishing a health care system that provides access to every American would be covered by that Constitutional mandate from the Founding Fathers.
Even many conservative legal scholars can’t justify a legal challenge like this; Suthers and 11 other state AGs are pretty much wasting taxpayer money pursuing this.
David,
I’m a hard left legal scholar and I am not able to find a constitutional basis for the health care bill. The federal government could constitutionally enact Medicare for all, but that’s very different than mandating the purchasing of private health insurers’ products.
I don’t think that the commerce clause supports the bill, nor does the general welfare clause.
I like to say that Congress cannot simply touch the commerce clause, turn into the Incredible Hulk, and then do anything it pleases. That mode of action went out of favor with the Rehnquist court.
I’m not entirely sure why states can mandate the purchase of auto insurance, but I am nearly entirely certain that the federal government lacks authority to make us all buy auto insurance.
In short, I think that the state AG’s may well have good claims. Wishful thinking will not overcome the constitutional obstacles.
Tom Russell
Professor of Law
University of Denver
trussell@law.du.edu
Tom, I disagree: the sole two cases in the past 70 yrs striking down anything on commerce grounds stand for only the following:
1) Congress can’t ban mere possession of a gun AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION (near schools), US v Lopez — but it can ban or regulate gun sales and ownership (Sup Ct denied cert on lower court holdings saying so, and Gonzalez v Raich says Cong can ban possession if there’s a market in it).
2) Congress can’t ban forms of gender-motivated violence that do not even involve use of any weapon or any transaction that might’ve been in interstate commerce.
That’s it. The Sup Ct then allowed a ban on growing your own medical marijuana, on the theory that as long as there’s a market (even an illegal one) in marijuana, then growing your own affects commerce enough. The Court has struck down NO laws in past 70 yrs that are about economic transactions — and it defines “economic transactions” broadly enough to include growing your own marijuana, b/c that’s home creation of something there’s a market in.
So while the health bill is different from those in other recent commerce challenges, it mandates economic activity — buying a form of insurance — with clear interstate effects (inteerstate medical markets, medical equipment etc). I see no way that the five Justices in the Gonzalez v Raich majority would flip their vote in a health care bill case.
Re: Raiche. The rational used by the Progressives on the SCOTUS in this case was truly bizarre.
Interesting that the constructionists on the SCOTUS ruled against the Bush AG while the Progressives ruled in favor.
Just think, if there were one more constructionist on the SCOTUS when this case was argued, California could legally regulate the cultivation and use of marijuana within its own borders, unencumbered by a meddling Federal government.
The mandate is simply a tax penalty for those who don’t buy insurance. Congress routinely uses our tax code to incentivize certain behaviors. We’re currently renting our home, should I file suit arguing that the Mortgage Interest tax deduction is an unconstitutional mandate on home ownership?
I’m not really sure what the Commerce Clause doesn’t support. The Lopez decision was based on the fact that there was no clear nexus with interstate commerce and insufficient impact on our national economy. Health insurance does not suffer from that fatal flaw.
The Federal government mandates a minimum wage be paid. I’m not sure the argument in support of this mandate is much different than that supporting the Federal minimum wage – and violation of minimum wage carries with it far more serious penalties than a simple tax penalty.
Finally, Erwin Chemerinsky thinks the conservative claims are bunk and that’s good enough for me 😉
Sincerely,
Your Eternally Humble Former Student
I do not think that the Commerce Clause is limitless in its reach. Whether it reaches to not buying insurance is the real question. Post Rehnquist, the doctrine contracted.
As for the tax argument, there are a series of cases that uncover regulations disguised as taxes, aren’t there? (I know there is also S. Dakota v. Dole.)
But–in the end–it’s not doctrine but 5 votes that matter. We know that there are already 4 votes against, don’t we?
Tom Russell
Or that they might win the case because we have 5 whackjobs on the Supreme Court? In your previous post you claimed that there is no Constitutional basis for federal action whatsoever because apparently two minor recent cases magically overturned a century of thought on the commerce clause.
Which is it?
Wasn’t about taxes, it was about transportation spending.
It is a wholely different argument.
I am no legal scholar (as you well know), but I don’t think this case applies to the tax issue.
Dole would apply if the government had said to the states “you must pass a state mandate or we will withhold 5% of your medicaid dollars” (what Dole challenged was the federal law withholding 5% of transportation funding from any state that had a drinking age lower than 21).
I find the tax argument compelling, unless you have another tax case.
However, I do see your point about the 4 member block.
The only penalty in the bill is the tax, there is no other coercion of citizens which is the reasoning the court used to overturned an ag law imposing a tax on processors of ag products.
Even in overturning the law the court said
I think in order to argue the fed doesn’t have the power to tax in this context you have to go back to the reasoning in Bailey v. Drexel which is the case that overturned federal child labor laws. Even though the court is conservative, I don’t think that is a place they want to go–its too dark even for Scalia’s black heart (who, BTW was in the majority in S Dakota v. Dole in saying the feds could withhold highway funds to encourage the states to adopt stricter drinking laws).
Ultimately, winning or losing at the Supreme Court is a political calculation like any other with the win number being 5.
One can typically only get to five with some kind of credible doctrinal argument. I think there are reasonable doubts about the constitutional basis for the health care bill. These doubts rest on the commerce clause and maybe on the taxing power.
So, with 4 votes in the bag, the question is whether a 5th will join in. Practically, I think that is possible. Analytically, I don’t see it as frivolous.
I do not, by the way, find the parts of the FL suit that whine about the burden on state government to be credible challenges. It’s an unfunded mandate; tough luck.
Tom Russell
Snow Day
This is a frivolous lawsuit. Every frivolous lawsuit has a tiny kernel of legitimate complaint, but is engineered primarily to waste time and money in hopes of a settlement (or in this case, in hopes of achieving higher office for the AGs). By ignoring or rationalizing this kind of thing every time it happens, you enable Republican obstructionism. I don’t know why you do this.
The legal issue has been dealt with. The commerce clause gives very broad powers to Congress based on Supreme Court precedent. Suthers is suing to contest settled law. He’s wrong, and he’ll lose, and he’ll waste the state’s money.
when Democrats have overwhelming majorities, wait till the new Congress gets sworn in.
The GOP is planing on being obstructionist when the Democrats control congress next year too?
.
They’ve given us enough war and recession when they run things.
This new Republican strategy of blocking their own proposals when a black President proposes them is more surprising than that one episode of Pinky and the Brain where they try to take over the world.
Every Pinky and the Brain episode they try to take over the world.
I do not want to have a republican running for office make legal decisions for me. We had 8 years of Repub rule and it almost destroyed our country. Another Repub decision such as putting the Bush into the prez suite will not do.
I am still trying to figure out how a president who decides to start a war to kill and main thousands of our soldiers, deplete our treasury, get rid of our Constitution, destroy our economy and make Wall Street ultra-rich is not illegal. But, to make health care affordable for Americans is illegal?
Dems – wake up. We cannot survive another four years of republican rule. Someone has to run against this egomaniac. Someone has to stop the takeover of our state by a politician bent on destroying our lives by preventing affordable health care. Run for AG. Please
For the first time in US history, Americans will be required to purchase a product whether they want it or not. The Progressives barely passed the legislation and even then had to use bribes and threats to do so. Heck, they didn’t even give lip service to Article V.
IF giving health insurance to the irresponsible or the healthy were the true intent of the Progressives, they’d of simply issued vouchers (or the like) and let the uninsured purchase health insurance.
Re: auto vs health. I choose to have an auto.
Re: deficit reduction. Yeah, and 2+2=5.
GO John Suthers!!!
But it’ll cost you a bit in extra taxes to offset the next time you show up at the hospital unprepared to pay your bill.
And if everyone decided to choose not to have an auto, what do you think Denver would look like? Let’s face it, most U.S. metros aren’t set up to accommodate mass transit, mass bicycling, and mass pedestrian traffic. A car isn’t terribly optional if you want to be competitive in the job market.
“You can choose not to have health insurance, but it’ll cost you a bit in extra taxes to offset the next time you show up at the hospital unprepared to pay your bill.”
Thanks for admitting that I’ll be penalized for not complying to an unConstitutional mandate.
“And if everyone decided to choose not to have an auto, what do you think Denver would look like?”
Well, more folks would live closer to their place of employment, that’s for sure.
Fortunately there are fantastic options for the purchase of auto insurance. Funny how free market competition works, huh?
The “free market” does not appply to the health care payment industry. There are only three industrialists dominating the health care payment system. There is no free market!
It is an oligarchy supported by republicans, and a few dems who should know better.
The reduction of that oligarchy is what the “public option” was all about. Unfortunately this has not happened. I hope to see it happen sometime in the next 10 years, but I don’t hold my breath. The health care payment industry has a lot of money to buy elections (especially now that the Republican SCoUS has decided corporations can buy elections).
Until President Obama signs the bill, the U.S. is still not on par with many third world countries for health care. This bill at least brings the U.S. to a point in 1980 for health care payments compared to the rest of the world.
The U.S. is not competitive because the high cost of health care payments in this country. This bill only begins to address that health care in this country is not what the health care payment industry started on.
Medical care has changed dramatically since 1950 when there was only a few drugs and vaccines available to treat or prevent diseases. For broken bones there was only X-ray and plaster casts.
Medical care has changed, yet how we pay for it has not. It will take a nation to reduce costs. The oligarchy has to be broken to bring the U.S. up to what the modern world is like. This bill is not at all what I wanted to see – however, it is a major step towards a new and modern world.
If true, it proves my point. Thanks. And now there is only one bank in charge of student loans. Good job!
So you appeal to the oligarchy for relief from the oppression of the oligarchy?
And now I know that you are silly. I’ve got experience with both. The Liberty enjoyed by health care providers in developing nations is the ONLY thing that could be argued as “better”.
Give it time though. US Healthcare providers will flock to Latin America and the Carribean in an effort to avoid the Community Organizer’s health care scheme.
A brave, new world? Yeah, massively expand the size of government and then claim that it’ll save money. 2+2=5.
http://politicalhumor.about.co…
What I call “being a good citizen,” a hard right con calls “being penalized.”
Come clean, Jon: Do you already own health insurance?
I’ve owned health insurance since I was in my early 20’s. It’s what responsible people do.
It’s awfully presumptuous of you to assume that I’m not a “good citizen” without a gun to my head.
to call this a “gun to your head.”
Way to use hyperbole rather than rational discussion. You’re a representative hard right loon.
doesn’t make for much of a free market.
Google “auto insurance providers”.
There’s a friggin’ thousand of them offering thousands of plans at thousands of price ranges which I can purchase from all 57 states (except Hawaii and Alaska).
And again, states mandate auto insurance, not the Feds.
aren’t we all mandated to purchase it.
oh but owning a car is a privilege you say… so health care is a privilege?
I say both are rights.
Why do you and southers want to curb rights?
by the state.
http://www.usconstitution.net/…
But perhaps you should read this link first,
http://www.usconstitution.net/…
The only thing that differentiates govt from any other institution in a free society is the power to coerce compliance. More govt = more coercion = less Liberty (fewer Rights).
You do have a Right to healthcare, you don’t have a Right to steal my money in order to pay for it. And without an Amendment to the Constitution, the Government has no right to require that I purchase it, even if a bare majority decress that I must,
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/his…
As a taxpayer I’m required to buy shitloads of military hardware against my will, and pay for wars I don’t want.
Saving lives is tyranny.
If you put that on 1,000 bumper stickers and sold them at a 9/12 event, how soon would you run out?
I’ll guess ten minutes.
http://www.breitbart.tv/shocki…
IF I were a dullard, a Progressive (as if there’s a difference), or a recent public school grad, your glib and sophmoric comment may bear some weight with me. I’m not.
Neither am I a reactionary who is easily offended, though from what I’ve seen, it appears that your kind of rhetoric probably plays quite well on this site.
A Breitbart link? And calling me a dullard while decrying sophomoric comments? You’re tedious.
I’ll give you the actual quote,
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 (million) American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
-Congressman John Dingell commenting on why many of the “benefits” of healthcare “reform” don’t take effect until 2014.
Yep, gotta “control the people”. It’s the Progressive Way, donchaknow?
I are verry a-scared! An old man worded a sentence badly!
When you get cancer and your insurance company has to treat you instead of kicking you off the policy, we won’t expect you to thank us. That’s not why we do these things.
But please oh please stop hurting my feelings with your biting wit! I remember being exactly like you when I was 16, right down to thinking “dullard” was much cleverer than “idiot.” Oh the things you’ll see…
I’m a neutralist with regard to foreign policy. But I’m not so naive or ignorant of history that I let my ideology cloud reality.
The purpose of the UN is/was to prevent another world war. In fulfilling that function, it was necessary to list the primary causes of war and work to alievate those causes. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that a fundamentalist belief in the Koran isn’t a threat to world order.
Instead of deriding Bush and his merry band of internationalists, you should instead thank him for advancing the UN Charter. He had the guts to practice what Progressives preach: the ends justify the means.
Not me, though. I don’t have a problem with others’ beliefs so long as they don’t affect me. As such, I view the problem of “terrorism” as nothing more than an immigration issue.
The Militia Act of 1792 requires:
(The first elision in the quote above removed the phrase “so enrolled and notified”. Under the Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 were automatically enrolled; I felt that leaving the phrase in unremarked-upon would have opened a string of rebuttals without merit – the elided version is clearer to the intent of the bill.)
Of course, that was merely a Congress comprised largely of the Founding Fathers, and it was signed by some nobody President named George Washington; they probably didn’t know much about Constitutional limitations on the purchase of goods by individuals.
Wonder why…
Probably because there was no standing army but rather a Second Amendment.
I’m sure that it says somewhere in the text of Amendment Two about the militia being “well-regulated”.
http://www.usconstitution.net/…
You:
Kinda contradicts what Washington and the 2nd U.S. Congress passed.
You’ll never get an Amendment which requires citizens to purchase health insurance. Ever. You couldn’t even get a majority to go along with the crazy scheme cooked up by Drs Obama, Reid, and Pelosi without bribes and threats.
That said, I can make a gun which complies with the Militia Act of 1792.
Are you arguing the second amendment infers both a right and responsibility to be a member of the militia? By your reasoning this would turn the second amendment into a collective right and defeat the reasoning the SCOTUS used in Parker v. DC to overturn the DC gun ban and put you TO THE LEFT of President Obama who asserts the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Using your reasoning, the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but rather a collective duty to participate in the defense of the US. You do this to create an exception to your statement
However, this assertion leads inexorably to the conclusion that we have no individual right to bear arms, but instead are compelled to buy them for use only within the context of a collective civil defense militia and that the government can limit individual ownership of arms outside of this context.
As a gun owning liberal, and strong defender of the 2nd amendment, I am troubled by conservatives willingness to trample on my rights to justify opposition to the a law they don’t like.
Either that or you are just trying to find a justification, any justification to back up your assertion, and will conveniently ignore its logical implications when it suits you.
This is what I know,
Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 16
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Amendment 2,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems pretty clear to me: I have an individual right to keep arms, and Congress has the ability to compel me to defend the country. But then, I still think that 2+2=4.
“As a gun owning liberal, and strong defender of the 2nd amendment, I am troubled by conservatives willingness to trample on my rights to justify opposition to the a law they don’t like.”
Which rights do conservatives “trample”?
2+2=4. Yes we know. Yes it has nothing to do with your increasingly tortured arguments, which don’t make any sense at all and which are contradicted by the facts presented to you. Yes it wasn’t funny the first time.
I see. I’m sure that someone like you would find the Constition and the Bill of Rights as “contradictory” and “tortured”.
Yikes! You aren’t allowed to vote, are you?
Your arguments aren’t any more tortured now than they were when you started. It was wrong of me to imply they could somehow have gotten worse.
So you are now the human embodiment in Colorado of the Bill of Rights? That’s quite a responsibility you have there. Some people would call it a “delusion of grandeur” and suggest that it was a form of insanity, but my reputation for civility precludes me from doing that.
Good luck with the Constition though. I can tell it’s very important to you.
Good one, sxp151! Even I enjoy a good snarkey putdown.
Yes, I do enjoy my grandeur. I am Jon Russo!
FAIL.
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining” doesn’t sound like “to require citizens to arm themselves at their own expense”.
In other words, the fact that Congress has explicit powers over the Militia doesn’t seem to include the power to compel its citizens to make purchases.
As noted by a zillion legal scholars (and about a half-dozen people here who’ve tried to explain it), health insurance almost certainly falls under the definition of interstate commerce and therefore under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution – no amendment needed.
The power to compel citizens to buy arms and equipment is no more ingrained in the Constitution than is the power to compel them to buy insurance (which, as discussed above, they can opt out of and pay a tax – which is very certainly in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments thereof).
Whatever you say.
I, however, don’t care what a bunch of Progressives on the SCOTUS say if their ruling is designed to confer powers to the government which are not enumerated in the Constitution.
Here’s what the Commerce Clause says,
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
I notice that the clause says nothing about compelling me to buy health insurance.
I will resist.
How does Suthers challenge impact the changes that were going to be enacted this year?
For example, my little sis whose 24 has had a difficult time getting insurance due to a preexisting condition. Will she be able to get on my parents insurance this year?
Many thanks!
I think the claim is meritless, but that hasn’t stopped Tony Scaly and the gang before.
The various state AGs aren’t likely to get a preliminary injunction against the immediate effects of the bill, which are strictly regulatory or federal program changes – well within the established borders of the Commerce Clause.
What they’re targeting is the individual mandate, which they feel is less settled law. Of course, we’ve had national mandates for all kinds of things before. IMHO, the likely outcome of an unlikely successful challenge to this portion of the bill would be a brief period of time where insurance companies would suffer more because they would have to accept and treat equally all comers regardless of their condition. This would rapidly be followed by some kind of legislative fix; if Republicans are in charge, it would be some kind of loosening of acceptance standards (timeout periods, pre-payment penalties, etc.), and if Democrats are in charge, it would likely be a move toward a single-payer or robust public option system which would satisfy the court’s complaints about the mandate (and by satisfying it would re-instate it).
It’s a tax on people without health insurance. Being a tax, it falls within the Federal government’s powers of taxation; this will be the government’s first line of defense.
and thus disagrees with Suthers.
Club-frickin-20.
Falling off the edge of the flat earth: the 21st Century GOP
in Grand Junction. With Club 20, you have to follow the money.
tell me where state law gives Suthers the authority to sue on behalf of the state in this case when neither the governor, treasurer, secretary of state nor commissioner of education asked him to do so. He is not free to invent a client. The client has to come to him in a civil case like this. I think the General Assembly should put a clause in the budget for FY 2011 saying he can’t spend money on this and Ritter’s counsel should file a motion to dismiss.
The AG is elected to act as citizens’ advocate, as well as to represent the state as you suggest – by request of a specific portion of the government – in legal matters.
The surest means of shutting this down in all but name is to have the GA pass a budget item prohibiting expenditures on this boondoggle.
that wrote this legislation knew this would happen. You have to figure they aren’t caught by surprise by these actions. The questions Republicans should be asking themselves is why the noose feels so tight. They are the ones who are constantly looking like the deer in the headlights when these events occur. They look totally surprised by what has happened to them. There are probably plans in place to deal with these suits. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans have anything up their sleeves that are real surprises for the Democrats. You get the feeling that the Republicans are just getting out coached and out hustled at this point. It looks like a tough assignment to obstruct with law suits. My bet is Democrats have their arguments ready.