PDA

View Full Version : Reagan's Solicitor General: It's Constitutional!



Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 03:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CHARLES FRIED TELLS THE GOP WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR.... Harvard law professor Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, doesn't love the Affordable Care Act, and isn't convinced it will work. But as a constitutional matter, Fried has no use for the right's arguments.

He'd written previously that "the health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution." Today, he elaborated on this point at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, calling the constitutional issue a "no-brainer."

"I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, 'what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is -- to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.' To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

"The mandate is a rule -- more accurately, 'part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,' to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you -- though it is enough for me -- you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said 'the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act' -- surely, to regulate health insurance -- "and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause."

True to form, and offering another reminder of what's become of the intellectual bankruptcy of Republican thought in the 21st century, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he was "shocked" by Fried's legal analysis -- because it differed from his own. The senator said how much he respected Fried's expertise, but instead of reevaluating his own thinking, Hatch instead said Fried must be wrong, because Hatch says so.

It's been that kind of debate. </div></div>

Heh! He said 'necessary and proper' (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027814.php)

Hmm, let's see. Conservative enough to be appointed by Ronald Reagan? Check. Expert enough to be Solicitor General, the Reagan government's chief advocate before the SCOTUS? Check. Now a professor of law at Harvard, making him an eminent scholar on the subject? Check. Citations dating back to John Marshall, a giant of the court's history? Check.

Proving nothing, except that there seems to be a mainstream legal argument that supports this interpretation.

pooltchr
02-02-2011, 04:39 PM
There are legal arguments on both sides of the issue...and none of the opinions will matter other that the SCOTUS.

Steve

Sev
02-02-2011, 05:00 PM
Another opinion amongst many.

LWW
02-03-2011, 03:23 AM
And the citation is simply wrong.

Forcing someone to buy something is not regulating commerce since no commerce existed to be regulated until the state mandated said commerce into existence.

Now, congress could have went the SS route and levied a tax and then appropriated money for national health care and been within the limits of the COTUS.

IMHO what ultimately killed this bill was the total arrogance of the democratic party. Had the buffoons actually fulfilled their duty and read the bil, many of the faults ... such as not including a severability clause ... could have been fixed.

LWW

LWW
02-03-2011, 03:25 AM
Ohhh ... how about citations back to Madison, Jay, and Hamilton that the purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent tariffs and import/export limits between the individual states.

LWW

pooltchr
02-03-2011, 07:45 AM
I find it quite interesting that the law isn't even in place yet, and already over 700 businesses and organizations have been granted waivers so they aren't required to participate. Just another indicator that the law wasn't well planned in the first place.

They were so hell-bent on passing a healthcare law, that they didn't care if what they actually passed was junk.

Steve

LWW
02-03-2011, 08:36 AM
If you remember, I predicted when this was going down that the party, and dear leader, would sign off on anything and the details mattered not a whit.

If congress had passed a bill with "HEALTH CARE REFORM" somewhere in the verbiage and all it did was dictate that all meds may only be taken in suppository form and cost $10K per dose ... Obama would have signed it and the O-cult would defend it.

This debacle truly has been an assault on logic.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-03-2011, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CHARLES FRIED TELLS THE GOP WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR.... Harvard law professor Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, doesn't love the Affordable Care Act, and isn't convinced it will work. But as a constitutional matter, Fried has no use for the right's arguments.

He'd written previously that "the health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution." Today, he elaborated on this point at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, calling the constitutional issue a "no-brainer."

"I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, 'what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is -- to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.' To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

"The mandate is a rule -- more accurately, 'part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,' to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you -- though it is enough for me -- you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said 'the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act' -- surely, to regulate health insurance -- "and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause."

True to form, and offering another reminder of what's become of the intellectual bankruptcy of Republican thought in the 21st century, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he was "shocked" by Fried's legal analysis -- because it differed from his own. The senator said how much he respected Fried's expertise, but instead of reevaluating his own thinking, Hatch instead said Fried must be wrong, because Hatch says so.

It's been that kind of debate. </div></div>

Heh! He said 'necessary and proper' (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027814.php)

Hmm, let's see. Conservative enough to be appointed by Ronald Reagan? Check. Expert enough to be Solicitor General, the Reagan government's chief advocate before the SCOTUS? Check. Now a professor of law at Harvard, making him an eminent scholar on the subject? Check. Citations dating back to John Marshall, a giant of the court's history? Check.

Proving nothing, except that there seems to be a mainstream legal argument that supports this interpretation. </div></div>

Of course it's Constitutional. Will come as quite a shock to the Digbats on here who have stated that it has been "Struck Down." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


Are they so uninformed, and ignorant, that they don't understand or didn't realize, from the start, that it would not, and could not, be struck down by any court short of the Supreme Courts' decision. Do they not know the difference between a Lower Court, "Ruling" or "finding" and a Supreme Curt Decision????

Interesting, since most Americans know things like that, and knew all along, only the supreme court, Can "Strike Down" this legislation.

Like the other titles on this forum, written by the dingbats, none of them true, and all of them and exercise in twisting facts, or simply blatantly untrue.

OOOOOOOOOOOW...the President is holding "Closed Door" meetings, in the White House, on the goings on in Egypt?

OOOOOOOOOOOOW, how dangerous is that!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

How VERY unAmerican, LMAO!

What kind of President, holds Closed Door Meetings, in the White House, about critical Foreign disruptions, in the Middle East....which could have wide spread consequences across the globe????

What a crock of ****!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

BWA HA HA HA....LMAO!


And the "Birther" nonsensse???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Just take a look at the thread titles on that, all of it ridiculous RW Dingbat, BS.

No Birth Certificate? LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Gee, what would that make of Republicans, then, to be so stuppid that they would sit by while the country voted and elected a Muslim to run the country!!!!

IDIOTS!

Tell it to the Palinban, from Beckistan, and then have Bachmann demand a wide spread investigation, forcing everyone in the country to either show their birth certificate, or be sent to either the nDeath Panels in Arizona, or the the internment camps, LMAO!
BWA HA HA HA!!!


These Bubbas, can't distinguish between Socialism, Fascism and Communism, and Democracy.

TWELVE THOUSAND AND FIFTY EIGHT POSTS of dingbat nonsense, lies and RW twisted propaganda, in three years and three months, and that's just ONE of them!..

LWW
02-03-2011, 11:04 AM
Excellently entertaining rant.

LWW

pooltchr
02-03-2011, 11:54 AM
It's sad to watch someone completely lose their mental capacity right before your eyes!

Steve

Stretch
02-03-2011, 07:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CHARLES FRIED TELLS THE GOP WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR.... Harvard law professor Charles Fried, President Reagan's Solicitor General, doesn't love the Affordable Care Act, and isn't convinced it will work. But as a constitutional matter, Fried has no use for the right's arguments.

He'd written previously that "the health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution." Today, he elaborated on this point at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, calling the constitutional issue a "no-brainer."

"I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, 'what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is -- to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.' To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

"The mandate is a rule -- more accurately, 'part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,' to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you -- though it is enough for me -- you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said 'the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act' -- surely, to regulate health insurance -- "and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause."

True to form, and offering another reminder of what's become of the intellectual bankruptcy of Republican thought in the 21st century, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he was "shocked" by Fried's legal analysis -- because it differed from his own. The senator said how much he respected Fried's expertise, but instead of reevaluating his own thinking, Hatch instead said Fried must be wrong, because Hatch says so.

It's been that kind of debate. </div></div>

Heh! He said 'necessary and proper' (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027814.php)

Hmm, let's see. Conservative enough to be appointed by Ronald Reagan? Check. Expert enough to be Solicitor General, the Reagan government's chief advocate before the SCOTUS? Check. Now a professor of law at Harvard, making him an eminent scholar on the subject? Check. Citations dating back to John Marshall, a giant of the court's history? Check.

Proving nothing, except that there seems to be a mainstream legal argument that supports this interpretation. </div></div>

Of course it's Constitutional. Will come as quite a shock to the Digbats on here who have stated that it has been "Struck Down." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


Are they so uninformed, and ignorant, that they don't understand or didn't realize, from the start, that it would not, and could not, be struck down by any court short of the Supreme Courts' decision. Do they not know the difference between a Lower Court, "Ruling" or "finding" and a Supreme Curt Decision????

Interesting, since most Americans know things like that, and knew all along, only the supreme court, Can "Strike Down" this legislation.

Like the other titles on this forum, written by the dingbats, none of them true, and all of them and exercise in twisting facts, or simply blatantly untrue.

OOOOOOOOOOOW...the President is holding "Closed Door" meetings, in the White House, on the goings on in Egypt?

OOOOOOOOOOOOW, how dangerous is that!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

How VERY unAmerican, LMAO!

What kind of President, holds Closed Door Meetings, in the White House, about critical Foreign disruptions, in the Middle East....which could have wide spread consequences across the globe????

What a crock of ****!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

BWA HA HA HA....LMAO!


And the "Birther" nonsensse???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Just take a look at the thread titles on that, all of it ridiculous RW Dingbat, BS.

No Birth Certificate? LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Gee, what would that make of Republicans, then, to be so stuppid that they would sit by while the country voted and elected a Muslim to run the country!!!!

IDIOTS!

Tell it to the Palinban, from Beckistan, and then have Bachmann demand a wide spread investigation, forcing everyone in the country to either show their birth certificate, or be sent to either the nDeath Panels in Arizona, or the the internment camps, LMAO!
BWA HA HA HA!!!


These Bubbas, can't distinguish between Socialism, Fascism and Communism, and Democracy.

TWELVE THOUSAND AND FIFTY EIGHT POSTS of dingbat nonsense, lies and RW twisted propaganda, in three years and three months, and that's just ONE of them!..

</div></div>

Excellent post. St.