Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Issue settled

November 17, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

Monday, I heard that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the purchase mandate and other parts of the Affordable Health Care Act next spring.

As a person who knows the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution verbatim I wonder what leg these states’ rights people think they have to stand on. Both states and Indian tribes are sovereign to govern themselves but dependent on the federal government for protection. This isn’t my opinion. This is the opinion of one U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in his rulings in the Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee v. Georgia rulings of the 1830s in response to the state rights position of one President Andrew Jackson.

These people think that the Articles of Confederation is the valid constitutional document the way they sound. Sorry, the U.S. Constitution replaced it in 1787 and gave the U.S. Congress that passed the health care law plenary power to regulate commerce. This isn’t federal overstepping. It’s Republicans having a temper tantrum fighting the U.S. Civil War all over again, which was lost by states’ rights governments.

I went to Constitution Day at the Lied Center. The anti-health care bill attorney was full of inferences and no facts. Legal cases are won with facts, not inference and smear tactics. This bill should be intact unless those justices who support smear tactics and inference bow to their corporate lackeys and pull another Gore v. Bush travesty.

Comments

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

gee..you're arguement baiting delusional person who openly refutes a tragic act of William Penn's sons against the ancestors of Delaware and Munsee Indians I know in Pomona, Kansas, and Copan and Bartlesville, Oklahoma in the 1730's. Your libertarian rantings aren't even worth acknowledging anymore.....say buh buy to credability buddy.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

oh you stepped in the big pile of historical duty now liberty........have you ever heard of the Walking Purchase of 1737? William Penn's sons made a deal with the Lenape or Delaware as White people call them to have the Lenape cede away as much land as could be walked by a man in a day. Only problem was that the White people cheated and had a whole team of walkers who walked over 20 miles in a day stealing many times the land the Lenape agreed to in the first place. You sound so naive in your rants. I'm expecting your parents to come down to your room in their basement to tell you dinner is ready since you probably live at home with your parents.

The Lenape, Munsee, Piscataway, Conoy, Shawnee, Nanticoke, Susquahannock, Tuscarora, and Tutelo peoples were affected by this land theft. Sweet dreams in your naivety.

0

weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago

anywhoo, this one's going to the supreme court. 3 district courts have upheld this legislation, and 1 has denied it.

"a roll of the dice! a roll of the dice! my nation, for the roll of the dice!" (most shamelessly stolen from shakespear's "richard III")

hold on to your knickerbockers, america.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

Actually Beatrice it did work the way I wanted it to. The southern Democrats who were state's rights racists back then were exiled to the Republican Party as part of Nixon's Southern Strategy stolen from George Wallace in 1968. They don't know their own history enough to know anyway. I grew up there and witnessed their historical ignorance.

Liberty waahwaah....Congress Shall Regulate the Commerce between the foreign nations, the several states, and the Indian tribes. Article One Section Eight Par Three... John Marshall stated that tribes and states were sovereign to govern themselves yet dependant on the federal government's protection in Worcester V. Georgia. How does a dillusional liberatarian argue with historical quotes?

Again you live on land your government stole through treaties and substandard collateral and if not for stolen land where would you take your delusional enlightenment? How did John Locke feel about the colonial theft of lands? Did he completely overlook tribes like the Treaty of Paris did in 1783? I guess in delusion you can say black is orange and green is polka dot....

Math your ignorance is ridiculous....

rockchalk how dare anyone stand up to your nonsense how dare they......

0

rockchalk1977 2 years, 5 months ago

Hubris means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities. Sound familiar Mr. Ford?

0

Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago

While I don't know what the complete answer is to this whole mess, I'm pretty sure the best answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.

We know that the federal government probably cannot force or mandate a citizen to buy health care for themselves, and their family.

Where is the "mandate," or something equivalent... that frees a health care provider from servicing a patient who simply does not have the money? No such mandate is probably needed, but... think about it.

I think I said this before in another thread on this subject--but if you were on the board of directors of a hospital, would you want your hospital to be the first one to ride out the public relations storm that would follow, when you turned a poor person away at your emergency room?

Maybe this kind of thing happens all the time, and we just don't here about it. Or, do the hospitals get a tax write-off ("charitable contribution," maybe) for servicing someone like this... perhaps in the same way that lawyers take on cases "pro bono" as a community service?

0

its_just_math 2 years, 5 months ago

Mr. Ford, why are you not out living on the res. then? Or why don't you leave the US since you seem to despise it so much. Your LTE whining and on-line psychotic ranting is ridiculous.

0

Liberty_One 2 years, 5 months ago

This letter is pure nonsense and has no legal leg to stand on. The Constitution created a government of limited powers, not expansive powers. If we followed this silly notion based in fantasy there would be no limit to the federal government's powers since everything can be twisted to be considered commerce. Thomas Jefferson mocked this type of thinking by pointing out that the Congress is authorized to create a navy. A navy requires ships, ships require nails, and hence wouldn't Congress be able to regulate nails? Of course not! But statists who wish for an ever expanding central government will demand it be so.

Mr. Ford obviously does NOT have the commerce clause memorized or else he would know that it does NOT say Congress can regulate anything that can be called commerce. The actual text says that Congress shall have power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." It is only among the states that Congress has power to regulate commerce. Among meaning amid, amidst, between, in the middle of. Hence the commence between Missouri and Kansas, but not within Kansas.

If the Constitution actually said what Mr. Ford wished it said, it would read: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. It doesn't say that though, so he has no legal leg to stand on.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

I would think anyone who believes so strongly that this isn't an issue that should even be considered by the highest court in the land, as the letter writer indicates, shouldn't be concerned.

The line "It’s Republicans having a temper tantrum fighting the U.S. Civil War all over again ..." tells me that the writer is indeed concerned and is using this opportunity to lash out at all Republicans. Not all who disagree with the Affordable Health Care Act are Republicans, and not all Republicans are against it. Besides, wasn't Lincoln a Republican? That means the analogy doesn't work the way the writer might have intended, since re-fighting the Civil War from the original Republican point of view would actually mean fighting to again keep the union together. Or something like that.

At any rate, I am strongly in favor of the Supreme Court reviewing the Affordable Health Care Act to indeed settle the issue once and for all. I believe it will be upheld, but I'm not exactly a Constitutional expert. If ruled unconstitutional, it means going back to the drawing board to help our society acquire affordable health care.

0

Jimo 2 years, 5 months ago

As Mr. Ford well knows, Indian Tribes occupy a unique place in the law. While often operating under a rubric of “sovereignty,” the Supreme Court has held that the incorporation of the Tribes into the United States with a dependent status caused a variety of aspects of sovereignty to be lost. Among those aspects in which there has been some implicit divestiture of sovereignty has been held to have occurred are those involving the relations between an Indian tribe and nonmembers of that tribe, diplomatic relations with other nations, the right to declare war, even some aspects of state authority even on reservation land. The Supreme Court has rejected that the Tribes possess “the full attributes of sovereignty, but” are properly viewed “as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the law of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided.” It's a far more mixed (some would say muddled) situation than declaring that Tribes are "sovereign" would imply.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 5 months ago

Shoulda bit the bullet and gone to single payer health care when they had the chance. Sadly, they couldn't beat out big pharma and the health industrial complex. The current law is a start, but just a baby step.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

all the time actually. Why do you think Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are crowd ducking cowards when they visit KU? ask Mr. Roberts about the Sherill V Oneida Indian Nation fiasco and the Wagnon V Prairie Band Potawatomi fiasco...Republican nominees recently turned the law on it's head that's what their bosses want.

0

defenestrator 2 years, 5 months ago

Mr. Ford:

The Supreme Court bow to corporate lackeys? No. They've never done anything like that before.

0

defenestrator 2 years, 5 months ago

"If the individual mandate is upheld, there will literally be nothing that the federal government cannot do to the control the lives of individual citizens, and the concept of freedom and liberty on which our country was founded will be lost forever."

Slippery Slope ever?

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

all you care about is mudslinging and inferences which aren't law. If you're a citizen of this country you're subject to it's laws. Or does that only apply with dimwit religious mantra about gay marriage and other religious deceptive wedge issues like the voter ID nonsense?

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 5 months ago

Earth to letter writer: The sole reason for the existence of the Commerce Clause was the fact that under the Articles of Confederation states had been attempting to interfere with the commercial activities of neighboring states in a number of ways, e.g. river traffic. In order to prevent that, the Commerce Clause was enacted. To stretch that so far as to postulate that under the Commerce Clause the federal government can now control inactivity on the part of individual citizens (the failure to purchase health insurance) is both ludicrous and preposterous. If the individual mandate is upheld, there will literally be nothing that the federal government cannot do to the control the lives of individual citizens, and the concept of freedom and liberty on which our country was founded will be lost forever.

Of course, I well understand that those who advocate the constitutionality of this linchpin of Obamacare, including the writer of this letter, apparently don't care about that.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.