The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

As usual, Keith says it better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.


Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

Jerry Brown!

[Strangler Lewis]

Unless something has changed since I went to law school, classifications based on gender receive only intermediate scrutiny whereas classifications based on race receive strict scrutiny.

[CoasterMatt]

What does the Constitution have to say about wielding torches and wooden rakes?

[Gn2Dlnd]

I'm not going to try to step up to the level of discourse here, so, let me just say that the use of the words "fudge" and "back door" have me giggling.

[Alex]

And following up on GDs devil's advocate follow up on me,

If not requiring the franchise for women was technically correct until the 19th Amendment (as well as not requiring the franchise for Chinese citizens until the 15th) does the absence of a specific amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to the franchise mean that it is technically acceptable for Utah to pass a law denying them that privilege?

There are only three parameters limiting how states can restrict the right to vote that are explicitly stated in the constitution:

1. Can't deny them the right just because they're a woman.
2. Can't deny them the right just because of their color or race.
3. Can't set an age limit older than 18.

So not allowing Methodists in Oregon to vote, or civil engineers in Minnesota, or gays in Alabama does not run afoul of those explicit restrictions.

Where does my right to vote come from? Do I have a "right" to vote, or merely a privilege that the state of California has not yet decided to take away?

This is a real world situation. Texas decided all on its lonesome that it could deprive certain classes of the mentally handicapped and former felons of the franchise. On what basis the is the "right" to vote less of a right than the "right" to marry?

[JWBear]

Alan Grayson!

[Alex]

If you want the Democrat to win? Obama. Not that he's doing great, but at this stage I think another Democrat loses.

Though not completely, but to a large degree because if there is a true primary battle the new person and Obama will completely rip each other to shreds. If Obama survives but has trouble he will be seriously weakened. And the other person will have to go way left of Obama to pull it off and like it or not way left of Obama does not get a majority of votes in this country.

Sure, the same thing will be happening on the Republican side but if there's a primary challenge to Obama nobody will care.

[innerSpaceman]

Bwahaha, 50 Reasons Obama is a sellout.

[sleepyjeff]

A federal judge declared a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

"Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/...rhaul_virginia


I got to wonder how Obamacare will work without this provision?

[Ghoulish Delight]

As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, I tend to agree with the ruling, which is why I was never particularly in favor of the version of national health care that was passed. You're right sleepy, the math simply doesn't work out of not everyone is participating, but I do find it a stretch to justify forced participation, in the form of requiring a private purchase (as opposed to simply providing coverage to everyone in a truly socialized system), hard to justify under the constitution.

A lot of people point to auto insurance as an analog, however that fails as an analogy on a handful of points. Firstly is the fact that the auto insurance requirement is about protecting the interest of others', you are under no obligation to purchase insurance that covers yourself. Secondly, you are not required to purchase insurance unless you voluntarily choose to drive. And third, probably most importantly, that requirement is on the state level, not the federal level. Different rules apply.

So while, as an overall policy matter, I'd prefer to see national health care move forward, until I see a convincing constitutional argument for this form of it, I can't fault the court if it decides against it.