*from what *you* say above is quite deep

Well, SC, we probably do agree on a few things then. In particular, I do agree with you that many people reach their opinions on issues of Constitutional law or on Supreme Court rulings based more on their political desires than on any knowledge of or interest in the law.

We would part ways on a couple things, though. Even by your usage of deep (which I guess is a less aggressive usage than I assumed, if you would consider my understanding deep ;-)), I don't necessarily agree that a deep understanding of the law is required to at least _begin_ to form good opinions in cases. A mere determination to judge them based on actual legal principles should be a sufficient beginning. A well written opinion and dissent should then lay out the arguments well enough to form a first opinion. Yes, of course a better understanding of the cases cited, etc., will enable a more accurate and fuller understanding, but it may be that even at the level of understanding one can gain from the opinion, one can decide that one side's reasoning is unconvincing. (Of course, I'm assuming a fairly accessible field, like the one today; if it's securities law, or even fourteenth amendment jurisprudence, then yeah, you probably want at least some background, unless the opinion is truly expository).

Interesting, as many noted today, the Chief Justice's opinion in the healthcare cases was unusually expository, presumably because he knew that many would read it.

The other place where we might or might not disagree is where you say that one should understand precedent well in order to come to a conclusion about the Constitutionality of a bill. That is true if you hold to certain views of the Constitution. But if one is, for example, an originalist who does not believe in stare decisis (like Justice Thomas) -- and that is a position that anybody could conceivably come to -- then one might well be able to make a conclusion about a given opinion without knowing the precedents involved, so long as one was passably familiar with the Constitution. Of course, that relies on a particular judicial philosophy which you may or may not find convincing, but it at least is not a retarded philosophy, and one who holds it can do as I say.

So, for example, it's not clearly crazy for a layperson to have strong opinions about federalism or the balance of powers (in either direction -- originalism was just an example) and to think that if precedent contradicts those opinions, so much the worse for precedent. Of course, there are arguments that could then be brought to bear on that judicial philosophy, and the person might not defend it very well, but.... whew, I'm getting far afield. The long and short of it is, I think it is perfectly possible for laypeople to have opinions on the constitutionality of laws that is fairly cogent without being thoroughly grounded in precedent.

Okay, setting all questions of election politics and health care aside for a moment, from a procedural and a, shall we say, "marketing" perspective, this has got to be one of biggest bait-and-switch games ever. The bill originated in the Senate, as I recall, as it was presented as just a bill. Not a new tax. If it were a tax, it would have to originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the US Constitution - yes I looked it up to make sure). But with the political climate at the time, there was no way that a "tax increase" would have passed. So it was marketed as an application of the commerce clause, arguing that the feds have the right to mandate commerce (require the purchase of health care), but it is not a tax. Now the SCOTUS declares, after the fact, that indeed the commerce clause does NOT give the feds the ability to mandate a purchase. BUT the bill is upheld because the "penalties" in the bill DO constitute a new tax.

So... if this IS a tax increase as the court claims, why isn't it kicked back to the House for proper routing as a revenue bill? I don't know how they can have it both ways; if it is not a tax, it violates the commerce clause, and if it is a tax then they bypassed the constitutional check that the more populist House of Reps is the gatekeeper for tax increases.

got that off my chest; going to get beer...

It did actually originate in the House, Disraeli.

I thought the house version died and the version that passed was the senate's. I tried to fact check myself on this point and didn't find a clear reference.

Well, if I'm wrong then 3/4 of my argument is gone. It is still a fact that the POTUS stated quite publicly that this was not a tax increase (I believe he was sincere) as he knew that a "tax increase" would fail. So at the very least it is extreme irony that it was only upheld because it IS actually a new tax.

I'm not opposed to having a health care system that shares the burden across everyone. So I don't object to the "end" in this case but the "means" was shitty. It was rammed through congress, barely, and never would have passed had it been ruled ahead of time to be a tax increase. So it leaves the taste of a bait-and-switch. I predict a pretty severe political backlash.

Okay, I found an explanation:

"The Senate bill for Obamacare in fact started as a House bill for raising revenue for some odd thing that had nothing at all to do with health care. The Senate then gutted that bill and filled it with Obamacare so they can say it started in the House."

Semck, can you corroborate? If so then, yes, my argument is off the mark.

I also found that many others are making the same argument that I made, and that creeped me out as some of them are not folks with whom I would care to associate.

'I'm not opposed to having a health care system that shares the burden across everyone. So I don't object to the "end" in this case but the "means" was shitty. It was rammed through congress, barely, and never would have passed had it been ruled ahead of time to be a tax increase. So it leaves the taste of a bait-and-switch. I predict a pretty severe political backlash.'

The means designed in the US system of government is supposed to handcuff everyone, such that nobody can do anything bad (no supreme monarch like in the old system) this is a design feature of the US constitution, it is meant to be stupid... So complain about the means all you like! Propose changes to the US constitution, but don't whinge that the system is stoopid while doing nothing about it. And definitely not when you like the end, as you ate basically doing nothing AND whinging about those who manage to achieve something worthwhile.

Where's my free shit?

I thought you said shirt, I was going to say, did you finish Insanity?

I was surprised that they ruled that it was constitutional, because the media seemed to be saying they wouldn't allow it, but the arguments they used to justify whether it was constitutional seem sound (the punishment is basically just a tax, they're not going to put people in jail for it, and the purpose is to make inter-state commerce work better which is exactly what the inter-state commerce clause is for).

What I want to know is how the ability for states to opt-out of the "mandate" will affect the functioning of the law.. If the system doesn't work without a mandate, and states can opt-out of the mandate, what sort of impact will that have? Will states want to opt-out given that the federal government will pay 90% of the subsidies for the low-income insured?


FYI here's a video which I was linked to my someone on here ages ago, which is a really excellent explanation of how the system works by someone involved in designing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVT0-MBVUzk

That's exactly it, kestasjk. It can't really work. It may be constitutional, it it is still a bad law.

Democrats should have been honest and passed something that was basically Medicare for all. It would or course bankrupt the country, but Obamacare does that too. Instead of doing something sensible like that they passed this monstrosity.

The interesting thing about the fact that the mandate is now a tax is that (from what I hear) there's no way to filibuster its repeal in the Senate, due to cloture or some other byzantine mechanism. That means that if the Republicans win the presidency and six Senate seats the law is doomed (the vice president breaks Senate ties). That's very doable if Romney has any coattails at all in places he WILL win like Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana, and if things break well for down ticket races in states he has to win like Florida, Ohio, or Virginia. Add in the other states that are total toss-ups and winning the Senate by just enough to repeal Obamacare looks really possible.

Of course, what to replace it with is another question. One that doesn't seem to have a complete answer yet.

't would or course bankrupt the country'

why? America is one of the most prosperous countries in the world! In terms of GDP per capita, there should be enough economic activity to actually pay for universal health care.

Of course you could bankrupt the country if you spend too much on health care, provide a level of care which is beyond what the country can afford, but with one of the highest GDPs in the world there is no reason why what Americans can afford shouldn't be the best health care in the world.

At least in principle.

That kind of reasoning, orathaic, is exactly how a country (or a person) bankrupts it/himself. "Oh, I'm rich. [Without further calculation....] Of course I can afford [something very expensive.]"

Kestas, I do think it leaves the law in a weird place. Not only will there be political pressures in some places not to sign onto the law, but even the 10-20% (or more, long term) could end up being very expensive. Of course, if any state does not sign on, then the poor in that state are extremely screwed, given the mandate's survival.

@smeck - this kind of logic is just the kind you need to counter mindless claims (not saying draug is mindless, more thinking of Ann Coultor here, who i saw on youtube earlier) My logic is not that you SHOULD spend this money, it is only that it is possoble to do so without going bankrupt.

Now next you'd have to balance the budget. Compare and contrast with other nations budgets and i'm sure you will see several differences. Draug might correctly point out thar US military spending is the highest in the world (probably higher than the next five countries combined) In which case i could easily claim that it was a reliance on military over-spending which forced the country into bankrupcy...

Or we could go over the relative merits or military spending versus medical spending (and how each improves the economy... Or damages it perhaps) but none of this discounts my point.

We spend so much on the military at least in part because Europe spends next to nothing. Even if American political culture were more welcoming to the idea of universal healthcare it's hard to do that when through NATO you're responsible for the defense of an extra continent. American military power keeps the peace in Europe (both from outside threats and to prevent the creation of internal ones), and that's not cheap. We can't even afford the existing entitlement programs, let alone this new one.

'American military power keeps the peace in Europe (both from outside threats and to prevent the creation of internal ones'

Nice story, but tha hasn't been the case since the 80s... And in the last decade there has been very little US military power available to do anything outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. Europe didn't fall apart with only the US nuclear deterrent left to back up US diplomacy.

Plus, the United States spends double what China, Russia, France, and the UK spend on military COMBINED. Given that these countries spend the most on military (after the U.S), do you really need to spend that much money on a military?

i 100% agree, let us bring the entire military HOME, and put it on OUR own borders, and I am sure the world be a very peaceful place again.

Put it on OUR borders, enforce OUR laws.

"Put it on OUR borders, enforce OUR laws." What, like enforcing Obamacare and clearing out Occupy camps?

Sure, if that is the Law. Even if I disagree with the law, it is the law, and we are a country of LAWS.

Is the Occupy camps illegal? Do they have their permits in order? If they do, even though I think they are idiots, they have a right to stay.

Not sure why you need troops to enforce obamacare though, so that comment seemed rather obscure, or more of a troll atempt

We don't need troops to enforce Obamacare (I hope). It was more that I found interesting your idea that the military should be used for domestic law enforcement. Generally, that's a police function.

And no, generally speaking, the Occupy camps violated any permits they had. Are they still out there? Media coverage has moved on.

i never impliled that at all. I said 'protect our borders' which is the ROLE of the military, no?

I was implying to enforce our border /immigration laws, not domestic. Wow,. what a reach

Well then, I guess I misunderstood you. Probably because you didn't actually say "protect our borders" and never mentioned immigration. Sorry for the reach.