The Spectacle Blog
From the American Enterprise Blog I see that my friend Chris DeMuth is thinking about the Liberal Mind. As I am about to release my new book, After The Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery, I am driven to reply to Chris. Coming out April 20, the book discusses much more than conservatives’ excesses. I engage Chris’s claim that “Progressives” are driven to their political orgies because they “believe that the natural course of history is the emergence of secular rationality as the true way to think about problems.…” This is true as far as it goes.
But, Chris, there is a deeper impulse driving the so-called Progressives. In Hangover I lay down the notion that they are goaded by a “political libido,” and it is the political libido of the nymphomaniac. In the case of healthcare reform it is the political libido of a sex offender. It transforms them from Chris’s “secular rationality” to a kind of orgiastic madness.
At AmSpec the spectacle of this madness provokes horselaughs among readers and writers alike — until April 15 and tax time. We Americans pay a lot in terms of taxes and loss of freedom because of the Liberals’ political incontinence, but at least they provide us with passing amusement and the sooner they pass the better.
The man Hardball host Chris Matthews calls "the legendary R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr." has done it again. His latest book, After the Hangover, offers an insightful and delightful exploration of the past, present, and future of American conservatism. Click here to read a free excerpt.
View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/02/liberal-libido
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- Her Unrequited Letter
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
William M. Selenke| 4.2.10 @ 11:27AM
There is a big memory hole of race relations in the United States. Surprisingly few people understand the following information.
After the Civil War when the American military was suppressing the hostiles, Indians, in the American West; a significant fraction of the fighting was done by the Buffalo soldiers, mostly freed slaves. The main Buffalo soldiers was given to these troopers by the Indians as a term of respect. They were good fighting soldiers.
About 20 to 30% of the troopers under Theodore Roosevelt's command at San Juan Hill were Negroes in the same black regiments that suppressed the Indians. The trigger for this war was the accidental destruction of the battleship Maine. The battleship Maine was the flagship of the United States Navy, the most important ship then afloat. The roster on the battleship Maine with a polygon crew, a miniature United Nations with a large number of Negro sailors. So at the turn of the century large numbers of Negroes in the military forces of the United States.
By 1910, the federal civil service was a temocratic institution. It was a totally integrated merit-based system in which there were Negroes supervisors.
What happened to cause a powerful reversal of this progress? One man was primarily responsible. That man was Woodrow Wilson, a Southern racist, and ignorant men who happen to have a certain education. Mr. Wilson courted the black vote 1912, there were a certain number of black voters in those days, and after elected he determined that Negroes were to be put in their rightful place in society for their own good . His instrument was Mr. Reynolds who later became Judge Reynolds of the Supreme Court. Judge Reynolds was so wicked that he would not associate at all with the first Hispanic and Jewish Judge.
With the authority of President Wilson, Reynolds went through the federal government and insisted on segregation, leading to the situation in which Negroes in the Second World War era had to struggle to fight for their country.
One sad sidelight to this. While legally segregated at the turn of the century in Washington, DC such segregation was breaking down on its own. As you know first ladies usually have some public function to which they lend their prestige. Mrs. Wilson used her prestige to go around Washington, DC freshly painting the colored signs on drinking fountains.
The point of this is that an evil president Wilson, who was in my opinion the worst American president ever, set back race relations in the United States 40 years. President Wilson is not as honored as he used to be but he is still honored.
George Orwell was correct. There are many memory holes.
With all be unfortunate and difficulty between races in the United States, certainly one should know about President Wilson.
Sincerely,
William M. Selenke
Cincinnati, OH
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 4:50PM
Excellent post, William; more proof that liberals are racists.
Wilson was a Progressive, as are Obama & CO.
Alan Brooks| 4.2.10 @ 9:42PM
Okay.
But don't be naive concerning libertopian minarchists and radical conservatives. They can be pretty libidinous as well.
Liberal Reader| 4.2.10 @ 1:01PM
Mr. Tyrrell,
This rhetoric seems a bit hysterical.
Tea Partiers compare the health bill -- in an insane and illogical analogy -- to Dachau.
You describe it to a Saturnalian orgy.
Fine, fine.
But let me inject a little sanity here:
The health care bill offers two things:
1. Health care insurance regulation, which the commerce clause permits the Congress;
2. A tax. Each year, taxpayers pay about 50 billion dollars for the uninsured; premium holders typically are charged about 10% more than they otherwise might to cover the difference. This amounts to about 100 billion dollars a year the uninsured -- who are exercising their freedom not to own insurance -- cost society. The tax is being levied to cover that amount. But: you can be EXEMPT from that tax by having insurance.
Now, you can call this an evil government take-over; you can call it Nazism, a deathcamp, an evil Stalinist orgy. It's a free country, Mr Tyrrell! Call it anything you want.
But in the end its a relatively straightforward health insurance reform.
Tim| 4.2.10 @ 1:04PM
"Is there a chance the track could bend?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC56hnyiP_s
Margie| 4.2.10 @ 2:43PM
"At AmSpec the spectacle of this madness provokes horselaughs among readers and writers alike --"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
victor| 4.2.10 @ 3:35PM
Weakly Liberal Reader strikes again:
"1. Health care insurance regulation, which the commerce clause permits the Congress;"
There is already enough, nay, far too much, regulation of the Health Insurance Sector.
Look through the following report and see exactly what your state mandates that every policy should have:
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte.....es2009.pdf
The average number of mandates is 43 mandatory coverages that each state should have.
The lowest is Idaho at 13 and the highest is Rhode Island at 70.
The higher you go the fewer insurance companies in that state.
From the report:
The Impact of Mandates.
While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive
because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. We estimate that mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to more than 50%, depending on the state and its mandates. Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Cadillac would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable car options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.
I have a basic car insurance policy and pay only $707 a year, which includes comp and collision.
We can pick from a dozen levels of coverage depending on our needs.
BTW the Commerce Clause says nothing about MANDATING anyone to buy anything from anyone.
Or the Government MANDATING us to buy anything the Government deems that we should have.
NYX | 4.2.10 @ 5:18PM
Oh Dear God.
Sanity? If I wasn't so incredibly dumbfounded with your childish assertions I'd laugh. You wouldn't know sanity if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.
The proof of this in your very own words.
"Each year, taxpayers pay about 50 billion dollars for the uninsured; premium holders typically are charged about 10% more than they otherwise might to cover the difference."
Only a complete fool could spout such nonsensical clap trap and ...even a bigger fool believes his own verbal vomiting.
So that 50 billions I and 85 % of the country that are already on the hook for now becomes...1 TRILLION? Taxes us nearly a dozen different ways? Pushes our insurance rates even higher?
Gives the Federal government unconstitutional authority over my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Is already proven across the board to result in massive hikes in the cost of insurance for those of us who WORK and EARN it.
And while Im on that topic...Proof or your claims of this magical 10% we're already paying exists where? Fact of the matter is it doesn't, you're simply creating facts to support your idiotic assertions, facts that don't other wise exist are lies, your lying through your teeth, just like your idiot savant in the White House.
And while on that sub-point, even if it does in fact exists why should I want to pay even more than what I already do for health insurance? Only a true intellectuality vapid fool would think like this.
But to continue, this Takes what I have worked for and earned and re-distributes it to one who may not have or does not choose to have the same work ethic? I'm supposed to just shrug and say "okay"?
That's sanity in a liberal's world.
Newsflash you miserable mewling half child ...It's not yours nor is it Congress's to give or take from me that which I have worked all these years to achieve. Call it a tax, call it a mandate call it a unicorn, it is theft.
Theft of property is theft of property, that the government does it makes it no more right than a man with a gun doing the same thing.
Tell you what lib reader YOU and every other pathetic whining Marxist want to have universal health care?
Then YOU liberals pay for it, but leave the rest of us alone.
I'm over it, you idiots want to force your agenda on others, have at it, but keep in mind...there are consequences to life's actions, & you and your fellow travelers best make damn sure you're ready to face those.
Alan Brooks| 4.2.10 @ 9:47PM
Liberal Reader,
There are too many irresponsible people, people who don't take care of themselves and their families. All the healthcare funding possible wont help those who are self-destructive--
and destructive to their families.
Alan Brooks| 4.2.10 @ 9:50PM
frankly,
I disagree with AS on one point here:
you blame govt; but the reason we have bad government is because too many bad civilians exist, and many bad civilians are attracted to working for the state.
A good people would have a good govt.
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 11:57PM
"People get the government they deserve." Thomas Jefferson
Sums it up nicely, doesn't it? If we want this mess fixed in Washington, DC--we're going to have to do it.
Alan Brooks| 4.4.10 @ 12:22AM
This mess wont be fixed, social progress is finished. You can live a longer life (physical progress), and an opulant life (economic progress), however postwar social progress is finished.
The crime rate isn't improving much; the schools are substandard, the political conversations are empty; and as you know, the government isn't becoming smaller.
Alan Brooks| 4.4.10 @ 12:23AM
opulent, not opulant-- see how bad the skools are?
SoCon| 4.4.10 @ 11:44PM
Alan, it is wrong to despair; you're just taking the easy way out.
Get a grip, man!
axbucxdu| 4.4.10 @ 10:10AM
Can we agree that people were still "good" back in 1913? Even a good people can be ruined by bad govt money.
Bill| 4.3.10 @ 1:26AM
Mr. Reader,
You state that insurance premiums rise by 10% due to the uninsured. Can you tell us why the insurance companies have been raising premiums more than 20% (or more)?
Don't worry, it is simple. Medicare. Medicare payments pay a fraction of the actual cost and the cost shifting (what you described above) has to be added to the premiums and those payments are going DOWN because Medicare is broke. The more broke it gets, the higher the premiums.
Lastly, those without a job can't pay premiums or the penalty in the Obamacare bill. So reform all you want, but all that will happen now is the insurance companies will go out of business (when they are regulated against raising premiums like they are required to do until Jan. 1, 2011, just after the November elections. Coincidence, I think not.) and then it will be Medicare on steroids for all until there are no more producers creating wealth to pay the premiums and we will become the new Haiti.
Sincerely,
A business owner
RWinks| 4.2.10 @ 2:15PM
To Liberal Reader: A tax? There are about a dozen new taxes in this monstrosity. More than 110 new agencies which will employ over 100,000 new federal bureaucrats being paid 175% of the average income of the slaves---excuse me---taxpayers who have to support them.
Insurance companies are already among the most heavily regulated businesses in the US. You seriously believe yet another layer of regulation in DC is going to usher in perfection. You are letting your religious zealotry on behalf of Marxism cloud what intelligence you may possess if you believe this exercise by political sociopaths will improve the delivery of medical care in the US.
Both Mr. DeMuth and Mr. Tyrrell are quite wrong to say Progressives believe in secular rationality. They are neither secular, nor rational. Their attachment to Marxism has all of the earmarks of religious conviction. And no one can be said to be rational who promotes collectivism when a century of experience in dozens of countries comprehensively demonstrates an unparalleled record of failure. Marxism is good for only one thing---cementing totalitarian power over a nations populace. This, no doubt, is the reason for it's continued popularity among the governing classes.
Liberal Reader| 4.2.10 @ 2:45PM
Whatever. This post proves you'd make a good stenographer. You've listened to your right wing radio and memorized the major points.
My point was that the health care bill is not all that unusual, and the apocalyptic and hissy rhetoric is prompted in right wingers seems utterly ridiculous.
The "mandate" -- which has got the right exercised (even though it's a Republican idea) -- is in essence a tax that Americans can choose to be exempt from by simply buying health insurance.
I have no problem with thoughtful criticisms of the bill; obviously, it's not perfect. But to accuse it of the kind of absurdly wild things that it's being accused of doesn't make anyone take your more sober criticisms more seriously.
For example, if you knew ANYTHING about Marxism, you'd know that this bill is anything BUT Marxism. It's not a government takeover, it's not Stalinism, it's not Nazism, it's not Dionysian Satanism, it's not any of this stuff and nonsense. It's just a health insurance reform bill.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 3:38PM
Robert Gibbs:
"The "mandate" -- which has got the right exercised (even though it's a Republican idea) -- is in essence a tax that Americans can choose to be exempt from by simply buying health insurance."
Show me the MANDATE in the Constitution that REQUIRES us to buy anything, much less insurance.
And BTW, why not life insurance?
Liberal Reader| 4.2.10 @ 3:46PM
The Constitution gives the power to levy taxes. The Constitution also gives the Congress power to regulate commerce.
Given that the Congress has the power to levy taxes, it also has the power to exempt citizens from taxes under certain conditions (hence "write-offs," etc.).
This bill essentially levies a relatively low tax on everyone and then exempts anyone who has health insurance. (This is why the IRS is used to execute the law.)
Like it or not, the health bill is simply a way of providing funds to pay for the health care that people will consume no matter what we do.
Now taxpayers are picking up an enormous bill and policy holders are subsidizing it to pay for those who exercise their liberty to have others pay their medical bills. This new law simply makes it so that no one has the freedom to consume medical services without paying for them.
You may say "I choose to have no health coverage," but if you wind up in the emergency room with a stab wound or a heart attack, you will be treated. Now Congress has assured that everyone will take some responsibility for assuring basic medical care to all people, and it clearly has the constitutional power to do so.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:13PM
Liberal Reader:
"(This is why the IRS is used to execute the law.)"
Is this why they are hiring 10000 agents and procuring the following initial order of 60 units?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d3b076bd4de14bbda5aba699e80621d&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au;=&
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....irty_Team_(MSST)_91106.jpg/777px-Maritime_Safety_&_Secuirty_Team_(MSST)_91106.jpg
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
"used to execute the law."
I'm sure that you are using the word "execute" in th emost favorable light possible, eh?
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:17PM
" The Constitution gives the power to levy taxes. The Constitution also gives the Congress power to regulate commerce.
Given that the Congress has the power to levy taxes, it also has the power to exempt citizens from taxes under certain conditions (hence "write-offs," etc.). "
Cite me an authority that says that that authorizes Congress to Mandate us to buy anything.
Otherwise you are lying, as usual.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:17PM
" The Constitution gives the power to levy taxes. The Constitution also gives the Congress power to regulate commerce.
Given that the Congress has the power to levy taxes, it also has the power to exempt citizens from taxes under certain conditions (hence "write-offs," etc.). "
Cite me an authority that says that that authorizes Congress to Mandate us to buy anything.
Otherwise you are lying, as usual.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:19PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....irty_Team_(MSST)_91106.jpg
Liberal Reader| 4.2.10 @ 4:22PM
Your definition of "lying" would have to be a little strange for that to be true, Victor.
Anyway.
The Congress is imposing a TAX. Anyone with health insurance is exempted from that tax.
It's constitutional. It's fine.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:24PM
Liberal Liar:
"It's constitutional. It's fine."
Cite me a source that says that it is Constitutional.
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 4:46PM
Even though ObamaCare legislation forcing Americans to purchase health care insurance is completely without precedent, Liberal Reader sez it's constitutional and it's fine, and that should be enough for you, Victor.
Who are you to question the mighty Screeder, lowly peon?
Warrior | 4.2.10 @ 10:21PM
To quote a great line, "I fart in your general direction."
axbucxdu| 4.3.10 @ 11:37AM
It's not fine. There were far less suboptimal solutions available than what is in effect the equivalent of wage & price controls.
All I see is the impulse to control rather than referee what should be a vigorous market competition, of carefully setting one interest against another. I see no effort made toward any of that in this bill, though I do see a lot of goose stepping.
The tried, tired, and failed mode of command & control in the new law is obvious.
Missy| 4.3.10 @ 1:48PM
It isn't about health care and it never was--it's about power and control, the lifeblood of fascist liberals.
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 3:01PM
" and it is the political libido of the nymphomaniac."
Liberal Reader is a nympho. No wonder the troll repulses me!
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:22PM
Oh, by the way, The Department of Education is ordering 27 of these little beauties:
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/n.....-shotguns/
http://www.remington.com/~/med.....-prod.ashx
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 4:41PM
I've read about the guns, Victor: I have one question, why?
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:54PM
Maybe the Great Libeler Reader can tell us why.
Perhaps it has something to do with enforcing all of these new UnConstitutional laws they are passing.
Not much defense against a sawed off shotgun, is there?
Remember Randy Weaver?
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 5:02PM
Yeah, I remember Randy Weaver; I remember his wife and baby, too. It still smarts a lot.
SoCon| 4.2.10 @ 5:10PM
LR is the propagandist 'velvet glove' arm of Obama & Co., Victor; Stern of SEIU, ACORN and various other democrat thugs are the iron fist. I'm just not sure how many law enforcement folks will back them up--that's an unknown at this time. IRS is spooky, though.
Screeder is a smooth operator.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:32PM
I just read that the I.C.E. is buying a quantity of these little beauties as well.
I wonder if Liberal Reader has any idea why numerous government agencies are buying countless numbers of sawed off 12 gauge shotguns with 14" barrels, eh?
victor| 4.2.10 @ 4:56PM
Libeler Reader:
"But let me inject a little sanity here:"
That's the funniest thing you've said all day!
matthew s harrison| 4.2.10 @ 6:57PM
Liberal Reader,
Like most liberals, you ignore the facts-and you ignore the truth. Punishment is not a tax. While tax is in fact a punishment in many ways, such as the higher your earnings, the higher the percentage of your income you are taxed-PUNISHMENT. You die, and your family are not allowed to enjoy much of the fruits of your labor that kept you from them while you worked 90 hours a week, because of the "death tax"-PUNISHMENT(of course we conservatives are hit with this more than the average Democrat voter, as a large percentage of Dems leave zero behind, because they earn little to save from their entitlements). I could go on and on....new fuel taxes-PUNISHMENT for driving a vehicle that doesn't get the mileage the Obamination thinks it should get. At any rate-a penalty by way of the Health Care bill is not a tax. Therefore, it is not constitutional. And were the HR bill to only dictate controls on premium costs, you would be right-the commerce clause would apply. However, as you so ardently deny by way of omission, that is not all it covers. It funds a domestic army. It forces citizens to buy something. It punishes those who don't. It punishes doctors by way of denying them the ability to compete by setting their own prices for services. It imposes taxes on only "earners" and mandates more free stuff to those who don't.
Again, I could go on and on-but you can't be swayed, because you obviously believe that somehow this is true reform. However it is not. It is a robbery of civil rights of Americans. It is robbery of a very large free market's ability, and the ability of those who work within it to set pricing for their goods and services, and it punishes those who have their own health care savings accounts, private insurance, and guarantees through price fixing(RICO) by the Federal Government, that there will no longer be private insurance available to Americans.
This entire bill is unconstitutional. This entire bill is a grotesque show of Obama and company hubris. This entire bill is a disgusting example of the Democrats' idea of "getting theirs while they can". Lastly, you and the rest of the Democrats are being fooled by the whole thing. Read the actual bill. Read every line of it. 40% of it has nothing whatsoever to do with health care. Most of it has to do with stealing the liberty of hard working Americans. Those Americans who are already getting free food, free cars, free cell phones, free health care gave up their personal liberty when they decided not to enter the workforce and settle for gubment cheese. But those of us who have worked hard all of our lives to give our families better, deserve better from our government. We deserve to be left alone to live. We deserve to be left alone to SAVE. We don't deserve to be sucked into a de facto communist dictatorship that believes that those of us who work to the extent we never see our families, we never vacation, we miss school plays, baseball games of our children, deserve the same miserable lives as those who choose not to work at all.
It isn't health care reform buddy-it is freedom reform-and our military men and women have fought against that for roughly 234 years if my math is correct.
victor| 4.2.10 @ 8:55PM
Hello Matthew,
Nice to "see" another Voice of Reason© here.
Not to discourage you, but logic and reason won't work on Liberal Reader, he is welded to his ideology as white on rice. He knows, but he does not care what is factual or real.
I am not sure, but I am almost certain that LR is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama White House. My wife has said that he may be David Axelrod, but I digress.
He is especially immune to facts, sources or citations. Everything we have in abundance, he is lacking. And therefore dismissive of.
He wants control and he wants the Nanny State.
Notice that his attitude is that whatever he believes to be true is true and you must be insane for not believing it or seeing.
Liberalism is truly a Mental Disorder.
This is what they are taught in the Government Run Schools.
I looked for some articles on the Texas Textbook Tempest with comments, but they were removed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03.....texas.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03.....texas.html
If you ever read the comments or letters to the Times, they sound as Liberal Reader does, impervious to facts, error filled opinions and separated from reason.
And Hysterical and Emotional as well.
Good to see another well thought out post.
He seems to vanish when up against a few well chosen citations to back up your argument.
matthew s harrison| 4.2.10 @ 9:48PM
Victor-I see he kind of vaporized didn't he. As for the times-I can't say that I ever see the responses to the NYT-as I would rather have my eyes burned out with a white hot poker, than to read anything spewed by the communists at the Times! The old gray lady is truly old and very dangerous to America. I tend to stay away from outfits like that who claim to be American, but act in an unAmerican fashion. They are the worst our country has to offer. I find that they refuse to actually report news, rather they report their opinion of what may have happened, and hide the truth beneath a heavy layer of wishful communist thinking!
Happy Easter!
MSH
Liberal Reader| 4.2.10 @ 10:33PM
Matthew --
Just because someone doesn't respond to your frothing bathos every forty five minutes does not mean he "vaporized."
Victor et al.
The health reform act is perfectly constitutional. It does nothing but levy a tax on those people who do not own insurance. People without insurance are guaranteed medical services by federal law, a fact which costs tax payers 50 billion a year and the policy holders some 40 billion a year. The "mandate," as it's referred to in the press, is simply the society insisting that people who receive medical services or the assurance of medical services pay for them.
It's really not so complicated as you and your friends are making it, and it certainly IS constitutional.
You might have noticed that the Constitution is mostly written in broad, general terms. What is "due process"? Well, people have had to sort that out for over 200 years. Laws are passed; laws are challenged; laws are interpreted and enforced. This is a complicated PROCESS that is not left up to any single person or group of people. All three branches participate -- and in the end, the voters hold sway, as they did in 06 and 08 when they voted FOR candidates promising health care reform and AGAINST the status quo.
It sucks to lose. I know. But you just have to try to be an adult about it and stop wetting your pants every time Glenn Beck starts yelping about "socialism." Remember: he's a RETARD. You don't have to be, if you're willing to do some of the work of thinking required to be a good citizen.
Troll Watch | 4.2.10 @ 11:01PM
The Hank Johnson of the American Spectator web site has spoken.
victor| 4.3.10 @ 1:50AM
Libeler Reader:
"The health reform act is perfectly constitutional."
You keep saying that, but you never offer any PROOF of that.
Not having insurance is NOT commerce and not subject to the Commerce Clause.
Lying Reader:
"Just because someone doesn't respond to your frothing bathos every forty five minutes does not mean he "vaporized.""
How about responding with the TRUTH, how about responding TRUTHFULLY, eh?
The Truth is not in you.
John 8:44
"You are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie he speaks of his own for he is a liar and the father of it."
victor| 4.3.10 @ 1:53AM
Libeler Reader:
"every time Glenn Beck"
I see that that is the new talking point from the Oval Office.
Even your Boss is using Beck's name to try and make his own pathetic case.
You guys are obsessed with Glenn, aren't you?
tj| 4.5.10 @ 9:16AM
No your the retard with the name calling OOOOW No talking points as usual. Just slander!! I bet Glen could sue you!!
matthew s harrison| 4.3.10 @ 12:17AM
Liberal Reader-I would love to argue the constitution with you, but alas, we RETARDS aintsa be a smart nuff to keep a up witchu book learnin types!
The whole country lost guy. The whole country. And while you may have lots of time on your hands to argue moot points on the internet, I have a family, and 2 companies to run-oh and a charity too. We RETARDS work-to the detriment of our health, our families, and to the benefit of the "have nots" who refuse to do the same.
When a government mandates you go out and buy something, they have just usurped the constitution. Get over yourself! The constitution is not broad. In fact your Comrade Dictator himself said it was too narrow, as is the Bill Of Rights, (as did his communist hero FDR). Problem for you, and your Comrade Maobama, the SCOTUS will side with constitutional precedent. Fortunately for the 50 million or so elderly who will be left to die due to the ridiculous cuts to medicare/medicaid, and the fact that 40% + of the licensed MD's in this country will retire, or just find work elsewhere, the SCOTUS will side with Constitutional Precedent. Fortunately for children like my son, who have lifelong illness, who will be killed through Zeke Emanuel's eugenics policies, SCOTUS will side with Constitutional Precedent, argued and won at SCOTUS level, on multiple occasions.
The most plainly obvious is the 1925 Linder V. United States 268 U.S.5
The two main points were simple
1). Any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power but solely to the achievement of something plainly within the power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. P. 268 U. S. 17.
and
2) Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress. P. 268 U. S. 18.
Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government. And we accept as established doctrine that any provision of an Act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power, but solely to the achievement of something plainly within power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. 17 U. S. 423; License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462; United States v. De Witt, 9 Wall. 41; Keller v. United States, 213 U. S. 138; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case,@ 259 U. S. 20. In the light of these principles, and not forgetting the familiar rule that
"a statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid, not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score,"
I could quote a few others-but I fear they would not only not be read by you, but even if read Liberal Reader, would be ignored, because you assume that Obama can buy the SCOTUS the same way he has bought the Congress. I highly doubt that the very judges he publicly scorned during his last state of the union aren't going to cease the opportunity to teach this juvenile delinquent a lesson in civics, and of course constitutional law.
You and all the rest of the left are approaching this pertinent to the commerce clause-which should hold water, baring a couple precedents, but at the end of the day, there are other precedents to consider, which will undoubtedly come up, and bear heavier weight than that of the previous liberal interpretations of the commerce clause by SCOTUS. At the very least, there will be a very long battle, that will bar any taxation from taking place, as the whole piece of sh,..legislation will be questioned from start to finish. There are anti-trust issues therein too-particularly having the Secretary of HHS setting pricing for private insurance companies. That is price fixing, and in case you haven't seen the 300 or so gigantic butt-kickings that many of our Fortune 1000 companies have taken by none other than the JD and Commerce, well look them up! The opportunities are endless. The amazing hubris and arrogance of the left concerning this bill is astounding. When guys/gals like you make the statements you make, and make the personal attacks on people you don't know, you really set yourselves up for a giant spanking when the whip comes down. You make yourselves out to be these intellectual giants, yet your arguments are so simple, basic and without so much as an iota of real thought or inflection, it is almost sad. You name call, you engage in everything but discussion of the facts. Your leadership does the same. Your president gets on television to the nation, and lies. He has 50 lobbyists on his staff for crying out loud. The left has become exactly what it harranged against for the 8 W years. You have become the very monster you swore to slay. You spend more than W did(which I thought would be impossible). Your every law and Executive Order is even more of a trampling of the Constitutional rights of Americans that W cold have dreamed(and he dreamed big in that category). It is amazing. Then you ram through this monstrosity that offers anything but healthcare for all. It raises premiums on nearly everyone(the only ones it doesn't are those who don't pay for their own). It leaves out 15 million people at the end of the day. It funds a brigade of brown-shirts. It forces the implant of chips in those on the government rolls. It forces people who's religion bars it, to pay for abortions. It is a big theft of personal freedom. The government has no business in the examination room where I speak with my doctor personally-and in my case-the government will NEVER be there. I wish you good luck. I hope that you aren't too crushed when this bill is trampled under the gavel of SCOTUS. I also wish you luck on the eve of the first Tuesday this coming November. Nancy Pelosi and company can't change the election laws in every state between now and then, like she is attempting in Wisconsin right now, and certainly the civil disobedience that is currently happening with the Census will disallow Obama's goal of redistricting the entire country before the mid-terms. So, it should be pretty painful for cats like you, and I just hope you are okay emotionally when it turns out that the Republican controlled congress de-funds every single piece of RICO inspired legislation that your cappos and foot soldiers enact on the hill!
A little piece of advice by the way-saying Status quo is old and is a b.s. Liberal term. Using Latin to say business as usual is beyond pretentious-and besides-everything Obama has done since last January has been D.C. business as usual. He has overstepped his powers, taken money from every pimp in DC, hasn't kept a single campaign promise (other than this, which was not wanted by the voters as is evidenced in every poll before, and since its passage), and he has installed friends and large political contributors in every foreign post int the State Department. Furthermore, he has given really sweet deals to contributors, like the deal he shepherded for George Soros to get 95% principal guaranteed on every loan at Indymac when Sorros bought it from FDIC-go figure! All of those actions, each and every one would be what anyone with a brain, who is not hammered on Kool Aid would call status quo!
Good night, and god bless you Liberal Reader!
Larry| 4.3.10 @ 12:45AM
So, dear Liberal Reader, this mandate is actually a "tax!" Pretty clever, but too clever by half. Whoever died and gave you a law degree didn't test you enough. If it is a "tax," why is it described first in mandate terms? And what is it a tax on? I doubt that it can be characterized as a tax on income. It is, in fact, a penalty for failure to purchase health insurance of any kind. That the penalty goes to the government to support whatever activity the government designates it to go to (there is no guarantee right now, even with the language that may exist in the current law, that the money will ever be used to pay for the cost of government intervention in and regulation of the health care sector). Even so, if it pays for regulation, it is more in the nature of a permit fee - i.e. that you won't be forced to purchase insurance if you pay this penalty. As such, it is not a "tax" in the sense that the case law of this country talks about the subject. It is a regulation of economic INACTIVITY - and economic inactivity is NOT commerce. Not at least according to the United States Supreme Court.
And for the sake of argument, if it is a "tax" and is not a tax on income, it is a direct tax that still must be apportioned between the states (the 16th Amendment didn't repeal that clause of the Constitution, it simply provided that income taxes were effectively not direct taxes that were subject to this requirement).
See, I can be just as clever as you. And the country still suffers from this travesty. Take your brainlessness somewhere where the gullible reside.
Yosemeti Sam| 4.3.10 @ 1:31AM
Consider:
Templative perspicacity from a bridging 18th and 19th centuries thinker:
William Godwin 1756- 1836
English philosopher and novelist
" What ... can be more shameless than
for society to make an example of those
whom she has goaded to the breach of order,
instead of amending her own institutions
which, by straining order into tyranny,
produced the mischief?
An Enquiry concerning the Principles
of Political Justice (1793) bk. 7, ch. 3 (on the penal laws)
Substitute the words - the Democrat party - in place of the word society, in text above.
Then read the text again. A fitting adaptation!
Tea mischief - anyone?
LOL.
LBSM PEN1 et al Leftoids unfortunately slander Tea Partiers as mutineers to CIC BHO - albeit they verge inexorably CONSTITUTIONALLY to November!