Here be a site dat makes da argument dat Obamacare be constitutional.
Here be ma counta argument dat Ah first posted at a blog called
Da Livin' Room Times.
My take on da Balkin article:
I) Tha dude spends a lot of time discussin' da House bill n' shit. Dis be off topic 'n Ah gots to ignore it.
II) Tha dude's argument dat dis be not an individual mandate:
A) Listin' a set of muthas who be exempt from da mandate does not invalidate da fact dat fo most muthas dat shit remains a mandate, man. Instead dat shit reinforces da fact dat that shit be a mandate fo those not exempted.
B) At least four of da exemptions Balkin describes be temporary states, 'n when dat person’s status changes da mandate gots to cova them.
C) Tha dude argues dat that shit be a tax, 'n not a mandate.
1) Tha dude first argues dat that shit be an excise tax, in tha dude's words a “tax on transactions or events”, know what I'm sayin'? Howeva dis be not a tax on a transaction or event, dat shit be a tax on da absence of a transaction or event, know what I'm sayin'? Da person be not bein' taxed on somethin' tha dude did, but ratha because tha dude didn’t do something n' shit. Dis be not an excise tax.
2) Tha dude then argues dat that shit be a penalty tax, a tax fo not doin' somethin' yo' ass be mandated by da government to do, know what I'm sayin'? Logically dis defeats da whole basis of tha dude's argument dat that shit be not a mandate, man. Yo' ass can’t be penalized fo not doin' somethin' yo' ass be not mandated to do.
D) If tha dude's argument be dat da term individual mandate be misleading, why does tha dude then proceed to use da term in da rest of tha dude's article?
III) Tha dude's General Welfare argument
A) Da term general welfare had a much different meanin' when da Constitution wuz written than dat shit does today, man. Da general welfare clause originally wuz a justification fo passin' laws, not a justification fo entitlements.
B) Balkin states: Da individual mandate be a tax, man. Does dat shit serve da general welfare? Da constitutional test be whetha Congress could reasonably conclude dat its taxin' 'n spendin' programs promote da general welfare of da country
Da individual mandate be not a tax, man. Da individual mandate be a requirement to purchase health insurance, know what I'm sayin'? Da tax be a penalty fo not complyin' wid da mandate, man. Da argument be not dat da government cannot impose taxes or penalties, dat shit be dat da government cannot require yo' ass to purchase health insurance, man. If dis bill simply taxed da muthas to pay fo health care dis constitutional argument would not exist.
C) As Sully says above tha dude's polluta analogy be flawed, man. To be correct tha dude gots to instead argue dat everyone, polluters 'n non- polluters alike be forced to pay fo pollution control equipment or pay a fine, know what I'm sayin'? Indeed dat shit would be 'mo accurate to say dat everyone be forced to pay fo yearly pollution offsets every year or pay a fine, whetha they produce pollution or not n' shit. (in any case da analogy would still be flawed)
D) Ah strongly disagree wid tha dude's proposition dat “the textual argument fo Congress’s authority unda da General Welfare Clause be obvious 'n powerful” in dis case n' shit. Tha dude assumes dat proposition, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude's only arguments be da flawed pollution analogy 'n a flawed definition of da individual mandate.
IV) Tha dude's Commerce Clause argument:
A) Both of da cases tha dude cites, Wickard v, know what I'm sayin'? Filburn 'n Gonzales v, man. Raich (both of which Ah disagree with), be cases where da government prohibited muthas from takin' an action dat might affect interstate commerce, know what I'm sayin'? Dis be a case where da government be forcin' muthas to take an action by arguin' dat they inaction affects commerce, know what I'm sayin'? Prohibitin' an action be not da same thin' as mandatin' an action.
B) Where be da logical end of dis argument? Usin' dis argument da government has a basis to mandate dat individuals purchase anythin' they want because dat shit could affect commerce n' shit. Why can’t da government mandate da purchase of a new GM or Chrysla ride every four years? Not buyin' GM or Chrysla products has a huge impact on interstate commerce, especially on otha buyin' they products.
“Because Congress believes dat da GM 'n Chrysla bailouts won’t succeed unless these muthas be forced to buy GM or Chrysla products, dat shit can regulate they activities in orda to make its bailout of GM 'n Chrysla effective.”
V) In ma opinion, da argument be not properly “Will da Supreme Court ova turn dis law.” sadly, Ah agree dat that shit be unlikely dat there be enough votes to overturn dis law, man. Howeva da argument properly should be “Should da Supreme Court overturn dis law?” In dat case Ah think da only answa be yes.
Update 10/27/10 9:45AM: Great minds think alike.Labels: blogs, health, money, Politics, Supreme Court, welfare
