House to vote on health care reform Sunday.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I know. It just feels sleazy to me. Starting with the end and working backward to find the authority. It's like starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it. I'd rather just pass an amendment saying congress shall provide health care. I'm an engineer at heart I suppose, not a politician. 

But then you would have to pass amendments allowing Congress to establish the interstate highway system, regulate the airwaves used by radio and TV stations, limit pollution, join the UN, provide foreign aid... the list of things allowed because of the interpretation (rather than enumeration) of federal power is almost endless.

[Hansmeister]

These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me.

That is a valid objection.  There has always been a tension between the idea of a restrictive versus expansive interpretation of enumerated powers.  Marshall tended to push a more expansive interpretation, but gilded age courts were far more restrictive. From the early 30s to the 90s, the Court strongly pushed an expansive interpretation.  Since then there has been a backlash but only a very moderate one.  Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Raich (that is the medical marijuana case referred to several times here) indicates that that even the conservative wing of the Court is not inclined to turn back the clock in giving a generous interpretation to federal authority, only to block the worst excesses.

Of course one could take a different view, but it would require a radical reorientation of the constitutional system and a repeal of the majority of the United States Code.

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

[Neil]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country.  Why undo all that?

[grumbler]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country.  Why undo all that?

Because some people feel more at home in a backwards shithole?

[Neil]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country.  Why undo all that?

Because some people feel more at home in a backwards shithole?

Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.

[grumbler]

Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.

Why?  Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?

[Agelastus]

Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.

Why?  Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?

Yes. Look at how much trouble they are having getting usable DNA. Fresh samples would be greatly appreciated.

[Neil]

Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.

Why?  Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?

Science has no Neanderthal corpses.

That said, these aren't Neanderthals, as you said earlier that they were people.

[stjaba]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

If that's how you feel, say goodbye to the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Interestingly enough, in Gonzalez v. Carhart,  which upheld the Federal ban on partial birth abortions, Justice Thomas's concurrence suggests that he doubts the Federal government has the authority to even ban partial birth abortions, but reserves comments since the challenging party did not challenge the statute under the commerce clause.

[Fate]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

If that's how you feel, say goodbye to the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Interestingly enough, in Gonzalez v. Carhart,  which upheld the Federal ban on partial birth abortions, Justice Thomas's concurrence suggests that he doubts the Federal government has the authority to even ban partial birth abortions, but reserves comments since the challenging party did not challenge the statute under the commerce clause.

I don't think Neocons are overly concerned with abortion. Hans just wants wars, low taxes, and huge deficits.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think Neocons are overly concerned with abortion. Hans just wants wars, low taxes, and huge deficits.

Surely they get a little satisfaction out of enriching their cronies, trampling on the Constitution, and watching black people drown too.

[Ed Anger]

Dammit people. If you keep responding to it, it'll keep humping your leg.

[MadImmortalMan]

And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.

You know, we could just pass an amendment granting all those powers right now and keep things as they are.

[katmai]

Dammit people. If you keep responding to it, it'll keep humping your leg.

Sadly that is about all the action some languishites can get.

[garbon]

Sadly that is about all the action some languishites can get.