Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (135614)	4/1/2010 2:39:29 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 542999

Topeka google. Here today, gone tomorrow google.com == Posted on Tue, Mar. 02, 2010 10:15 PM Topeka temporarily changes its name in bid for Google's attention Topeka’s mayor says the city shall temporarily be referred to as “Google, Kansas — the capital city of fiberoptics,” in an effort to persuade the Internet giant to test an ultra-fast connection in the state capital. Mayor Bill Bunten issued the proclamation Monday after no City Council members objected to the monthlong change. Bunten said he hoped the proclamation would set Topeka apart from other cities, including Grand Rapids, Mich., and Baton Rouge, La., vying for Google’s attention. \| The Associated Press kansascity.com

To: TimF who wrote (135614)	4/1/2010 7:24:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542999

Tim, re: "Fine, lets look directly at the issue. What part of the constitution grants the federal government power to mandate purchases? Its not regulation of interstate commerce since many purchases are in state, and since it isn't even commerce but rather lack of commerce." Since you're evidently misinformed let me give you a short lesson in constitutional law. First, if you think you can read the short document that is the constitution and then check mark what is and what is not granted or prohibited under the constitution then you're simply wrong. There are literally tens of thousands of cases decided by the Supreme court, lower federal courts and state courts that define and refine the federal constitution. Many of those cases are decades or centuries old and they've withstood the test of time and are read as part of the constitution. As a result, you have to know the case law on a particular clause of the constitution in order to understand what is and what is not constitutional. Second, with respect to the "commerce clause," it's simply amazing that you would make an argument that the commerce clause could not apply either because "many are in state" or because "it isn't even commerce but rather lack of commerce." The huge body of legal precedent makes it crystal clear that neither of those factors will make a spit of difference and when you post such nonsense you're exposing how little constitutional knowledge you possess. Third, the US Supreme Court may decide to limit the right of Congress to impose mandatory health insurance but if it does it will have to find a new rationale somewhere in the constitution or the conservative majority of justices will have to undo decades of well accepted legal precedent. In the old days your party used to call that "judicial activism," which they saw as evil because unelected judges were legislating from the bench. Funny how things change when you're on the other side of the fence, isn't it? You're welcome. Ed

To: TimF who wrote (135614)	4/2/2010 9:50:02 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542999

>>Once again someone here makes a false statement about what I posted. I find that to be tiresome. It wasn't an analogy it was an example, and not one I created. If the example is to be considered valid the details of it are important. An analogy would just be a way to present an argument, if the analogy was faulty it doesn't show that the argument behind it is faulty, but using car insurance as an example is not a way to present the argument, it is an argument itself, if its faulty in its details than the argument is faulty. << It wasn't a metaphor, but it was an analogy. You were saying that the analogy between the mandate for car insurance and that for health insurance was imperfect, and that the case for mandating health insurance was, therefore, flawed. I see them the two cases as being imperfectly analogous, too, but that fact alone doesn't invalidate the argument in favor of government mandates for health insurance, since the government and private healthcare providers incur costs when people who are uninsured use healthcare services in emergency situations. Because that is the case, I believe that the mandate would fall under the "provide for the general welfare" concept of governmental responsibility. You don't believe the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to require people to buy health insurance. There is legal disagreement about that, and I imagine that the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to rule on the question. But even if the mandate is struck down on that basis, it may well stand under general welfare.