Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyOps  Perhaps I am naïve. Or perhaps it’s naïve to believe most folks out there bother to educate themselves on this enough to know in any definitive way about the constitutionality of Obamacare. Maybe folks are waiting for what the Supreme Court is going to decide and go with that. When only about half of voters bother to vote in presidential elections and about 27% bother to vote in off elections, I think there is a pretty high level of complacency among voters and allow things like this to help them make their minds up about things.
That’s not really my point… I think people need more convincing about who Obama is. For as many things he has done to show what a socialist he is, he is still very popular. When you have a president that can unilaterally nix existing law (immigrations law) without congress, and people are still supporting him, shows me there are an awful lot of people that remain uninformed. When you look at what Holder is doing, our chief law enforcement officer, can you honestly say Obama should be anywhere near as popular as he is? Can anyone, with an ounce of honesty, say this president has our laws and the constitution in his best interest?
I just don’t get that people are paying that much attention; because if they were, his poll numbers would be in the dirt. |
Sure. A lot of people don't have much respect for the Constitution. Heck, many people that are ardent in their supposed respect for our Constitution in the abstract belie that respect when discussing specifics. Many people claim to want to see it adhered to then disregard it, or offer some ridiculous interpretation of it, when it would rightfully get in the way of their policy preferences. I would not exalt President Obama's respect for our Constitution, but many of his critics are guilty of not respecting it themselves - their general rhetoric purports reverence for it, but their actions and policy positions reveal apathy or even disdain. We see it everywhere in the realm of politics, including here in these forums. There doesn't seem to be a lot of sincere allegiance to the Constitution, even among those that discuss such things.
None of that alters the accuracy of what I said, which you disagreed with, though. Do you really believe that a meaningful number of people will change their mind about whether they support the PPACA (in its entirety, not just the mandate) based on what the Supreme Court rules? That they'd decide President Obama was wrong to have pushed for it because the Supreme Court throws it out? I'll ask of you again: If the Supreme Court says that the mandate is indeed Constitutional, will that redeem his respect for our Constitution in your eyes? Or will you think that the Supreme Court got it wrong? Will it improve your opinion of President Obama? Supreme Court decisions, to the extent they sway hearts and minds with regard to the propriety of policy at all, only do so over time, e.g., as with the Brown v. Board decision.
Moving off the original topic (i.e. whether the Supreme Court striking down the PPACA would help President Obama's reelection chances) and back to what you're talking about now, I'd make a couple of points in response to what you said. As I've already suggested, I wouldn't hold President Obama up as a great respecter of our Constitution, I'd argue to the contrary. But the PPACA isn't a great illustration to the contrary, at least not to the extent that we're going to respect the Supreme Court's authority with regard to Constitutional interpretation and expect him to do the same. The advocates of the PPACA (i.e. the mandate in particular) had good reason to believe that the mandate didn't violate the Constitution so far as the Court was concerned. The basic rationale that the Court has carved out over the years probably supports the mandate's Constitutionality more than it refutes it. The Supreme Court may well decide now that the mandate violates the Constitution, but in doing so it will be creating new rules not merely applying the existing ones objectively.
It was reasonable for the President to think that the mandate was allowable. The past reasoning of the Supreme Court, with regard to the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, is in my view wrong and pretty clearly so. But it has been the reasoning of the Supreme Court, supposedly the ultimate decider-er, nonetheless. President Obama has been disrespectful of the Supreme Court at times and he should be criticized for that. But in this instance his position is not disrespectful of the Court, it's deferential to it (not based on some grand principle or inherent respect for the Court I think, but based on convenience - in this case, accepting what the Court has said is convenient to what President Obama wants as a matter of policy). It is we that oppose the mandate and the PPACA that are asking the high Court to change its mind about what the Constitution allows (and, in doing so, expecting Justices Scalia and Kennedy to demonstrate a bit of intellectual hypocrisy, btw).
And the second point: What immigration laws are you suggesting President Obama has nixed? I'd assume you're referring to the recent announcement about not deporting illegal aliens that were brought here as minors? I had this conversation somewhere with ETC a few days ago, so I won't rehash it here. I'll just ask (what is mostly a rhetorical question): Have you read the laws which you suggest the President has nixed so that you know what they actually say, or are you just assuming that they say what you hope (or would think) that they say? I'm guessing what they actually say isn't what you hope (and seem to assume) that they say. President Obama may be nixing, or bypassing, or failing to enforce, what you hope our immigration laws say; but I don't see where he's doing those things with regard to what our immigration laws actually do say.
I suggest this sincerely, read the immigration chapter yourself (Chapter 12 of Title 8 of U.S. Code) so that you know for yourself what it says and doesn't say. If you don't like what it says, argue for changes that you think need to be made. But if we're going to take positions and make assertions based on what our laws say, it would help for us to know what our laws say. I suggest this to you only because I think you are among a too small number that would prefer to be fair and accurate in your arguments and positions. A lot of people don't seem to care, they'd rather be ignorant if that means being able to make specious arguments in support of their desires or positions, or against people they don't like. I wouldn't waste my time (sincerely) suggesting that they actually figure out what they're talking about before they spout off about it. For some, specific ignorance seems to be a feature rather than a bug.
I don't see that being the case with you and I hope I've not offended you with my comments, that is not my intent.
9Likes
Linear Mode
