MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, November 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 46.0° F  Light Rain Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

Tea Party is Winning

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:34 pm

Keep drawing attention away from the fact that you seriously misplayed the race card a few posts back.

And I used the word "liberally" in a non-political context, as in "flexibly" or "taking great liberty [while interpreting the document]". I don't think that "libertarianly" is a word.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:37 pm

So what other major Supreme Court decisions baed on the Commerce Clause do you/libertarians disagree with? Civil rights apply to all.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:40 pm

WTF are you talking about? My objection was to your absurd comparison of Jim Crow to pre-mandate health care.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:43 pm

You know little of both history and constitutional law.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:01 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:You know little of both history and constitutional law.
I don't know what you think we're discussing here. Please be very clear. I'm calling attention to your crass comparison of Jim Crow and pre-mandate health care. I would argue that the CRA 1964 and 1965 had much more to do with the 14th and 15th amendments than the Commerce Clause. Only those parts of the CRA 1964 that dealt with regulation of private business (2 out of 11) have any reasonable connection to the CC.

At this point, the Commerce Clause has effectively nothing to do with the ACA as implementation proceeds. It was upheld as a tax, which appears two clauses before the Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section 8.

Now, I've humored your side of the discussion, so go back to clarify that point you made about Jim Crow and pre-mandate health care. Tell me more about what you were trying to get at.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:26 am

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby ArturoBandini » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:54 am

Yuh, Henry, I got the part about the Commerce Clause being a factor behind the CRA 1964. If you read my previous post you'll see that I've already acknowledged and expounded on that. I also already knew about Ron Paul's position on the matter.

Let's bring it back to the ACA and your idea about how not participating in the health insurance market is somehow constitutionally-comparable to being a business owner who refuses to serve blacks. Other than the fact that one can (liberally) stretch such transactions (or non-transactions) as having some bearing on interstate commerce, they are totally different issues. Why bring them up together?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:08 pm

I brought up the Commerce Clause because the health care decision specifically mentioned it and from my read, the majority of justices want to narrow its use in setting federal policies. Again, the Commerce Clause was the overriding reason why public accomodation laws under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were ruled constitutional. State Rights advocates, such as libertarian Ron Paul want to roll back broad use of the Commerce Clause, in the name of liberty.

You accuse me of playing the race card for stating that. You are protesting too much.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby bdog » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:22 pm

See a doctor and get rid of it.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby ArturoBandini » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:26 pm

Yours, Henry, is a ridiculous argument. You are leveraging a liberal shibboleth about race history (conjuring sympathetic images of lunch counters and fire hoses) into an argument that the Commerce Clause should be validated for an entirely unrelated purpose. Because the Commerce Clause was argued to advance one purpose that people deem to be good doesn't mean that it should be valid to cite for any unrelated purpose (the goodness of that purpose notwithstanding).

Here's what your argument boils down to:
-We like Policy A, and A was ruled to be Constitutionally-valid under Clause X.
-We like Policy B.
-Therefore, Policy B should be ruled Constitutionally-valid under Clause X.

If I've read you wrong, please correct my logical schematic above in similarly general terms (i.e. not referring to an emotionally-charged historical anecdote).
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:16 pm

I agree, Ron Paul's argument concerning the Commerce Clause is ridiculous. But it is his argument. As to whether the Supreme Court will concur, only a relevant case would tell.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Tea Party is Winning

Postby johnfajardohenry » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I brought up the Commerce Clause because the health care decision specifically mentioned it and from my read, the majority of justices want to narrow its use in setting federal policies. Again, the Commerce Clause was the overriding reason why public accomodation laws under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were ruled constitutional. State Rights advocates, such as libertarian Ron Paul want to roll back broad use of the Commerce Clause, in the name of liberty.

You accuse me of playing the race card for stating that. You are protesting too much.


So do you think black Americans are better off today because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Subjectively, I think the answer is "yes". Something needed to be done, some major political gesture, in 1964 and the CRA accomplished that.

But objectively. If we look at various quantitative measures of how blacks were doing before and after the CRA, was it good or bad?

Employment rates, income equality, infant mortality, welfare rates, illegitimacy, HS completion, College completion and a number of other indices were improving before 1964. Some fairly dramatically.

Many of these indices continued to improve after the CRA but at a slower rate. Some stopped improving and started getting worse.

It is not always easy to conclusively show direct cause and effect but there is certainly a relationship.

I am not saying that the CRA should be repealed. I am not even saying that it should not have been passed, although I am not as supportive of it now as I used to be.

I am saying that it brought a number of unintended (or perhaps intended?) negative consequences to black Americans.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Previous

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar