Slashdot Mirror
President Obama To Appear On Mythbusters
Muondecay writes "President Obama will be featured in the December 8th MythBusters episode, 'Archimedes Solar Ray,' during which he will challenge Adam and Jamie to revisit an ancient and somewhat controversial myth: Did Greek scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun during the Siege of Syracuse? This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education."
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
See some nice examples on the left of creepy cult of personality.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Hypothesis: /. postings don't establish constitutionality or lack thereof, the courts do.
I'll leave the rest to the interested readers. :-)
Really, what is it with you stupid americans and your socialism paranoia? This goes way beyond sanity.
Now you may want the doctors to simply let people croak who can't pay their medical bills anymore. But there's this thing called the hippocratic oath. That's hippocratic after the old greek Hippocrates guy, not hypocritic, which americans have more experience with.
Oh, and the stupid "confiscation of property" argument has been tried before, to make all taxes illegal. Guess what, the courts disagree, the argument has been put down, you can beat a dead horse if you like, but you should stop trying to ride it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Well, that or the fact that Congress passed an *actual* Bill Of Attainder to defund ACORN?
Somehow, I think that he was less worked up about that, an actual clear-cut and dry Constitutional violation than the health care bill, so I respectfully doubt his Defender Of The Constitution credentials.
I think that they would find that law similarly unconstitutional.
I too find requiring the purchase of something in exchange for nothing to be wrong (I have no problem with mandated liability insurance as this is only required if you use public roadways, if all your transport is on private lands you are fine).
That was a conditional forced purchase. It only applied to men aged 18 to 45 for the purpose of national defense.
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock." It's no different than making drivers insurance a condition of driving a vehicle.
There was also no penalty for not buying a weapon. Soldiers weren't fined for not getting one.
This law was justified because it is the responsibility of the Federal Govt to provide for the general welfare. National defense falls under "general welfare." Forcing people regardless of age, gender, or income to either buy health insurance or pay a large fine is a completely different situation and is not covered under national defense.
fyi ... that law was in place until 1903.
Tea Party heads will explode when SCOTUS decides that the Interstate Commerce Clause makes the HCA Constitutional.
Indeed. You'd see a grassroots Amendment process if this were the case, because SCOTUS would be granting Congress a brand new power - the ability to compel you to buy a product of their choosing, and penalize you should you disagree. This goes beyond prohibiting a given economic behavior to actually mandating one. And it doesn't just specify compliance in the general sense, but for the first time ever requires that the government itself maintain oversight over the entire segment of the economy. Were the court to decide that this is ambiguous, I could easily see a mandate from the people clearing that up. A lot of people, myself included, see the Interstate Commerce Clause as a structure for mediating disputes between the states, as opposed to a 'write whatever laws you want' power.
Could you imagine a Federal law of this type in any other sense? Mandating that you eat only beef, and never chicken? Wear Nike shoes bought only at WalMart? It is absolutely unprecedented, and therefore unconstitutional, at a minimum. Were the court to decide otherwise, there will be a lot of shocked and surprised people, myself included.
How does this experiment hold up against the Militia Act of 1792 whereby Congress mandated that every able body male between eighteen and forty five years of age purchase their own musket? Mind you, they weren't provided a musket, but were mandated to buy one.
Well, I'm not aware of this ever facing SCOTUS review, are you?
Further, the law seems to only apply to actual members of the militia:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Further, the law may not have provided you with a musket, but it does appear to allow you to claim it on your taxes:
...and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes
If I'm reading that right, you might not even have to pay for it at all, if it were a debt, but I digress...
So the law said that 'if you were drafted, you had to come prepared to fight'.
This is really the same thing as saying 'if you are alive you must buy exactly this kind of insurance'? HCR mandates a LOT more than just 'a musket' and applies to everyone, not just those males who were drafted. These are apples and crab apples.
But that being said, I doubt this law would have been found in keeping with the Commerce Clause, either. Particularly not once the nation had a standing military of the scope and power that we now possess.
Well, that or the fact that Congress passed an *actual* Bill Of Attainder to defund ACORN?
Somehow, I think that he was less worked up about that, an actual clear-cut and dry Constitutional violation than the health care bill, so I respectfully doubt his Defender Of The Constitution credentials.
This is going to hinge on whether or not ACORN was "punished" by being cut off from government funding. Does that mean that my organization "Give Tax Dollars to Bob" is likewise "punished" when I do not receive funding? Does ACORN have a right to funding that was removed by this law?
This doesn't appear to be anything to as close to clear cut as the healthcare constitutional issue is.
I remember in 2008 when multiple major newspapers referred to Obama as a "Democratic rock star" or a "rising rock star of the Democratic Party." It was all in the span of a month, and all equally embarrassing. You may not have heard his followers call him a messiah, but they most certainly treated him like one. Hope and change!
"Hypothesis: The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose mandatory health care insurance on every citizen."
Sigh.... congress did not impose mandatory health care insurance. They used their ability to tax (taxing to promote or demote a policy, as they do with many other things) people who do not have health care insurance. If you have health care insurance, you get a tax rebate equal to the tax increase.
People have described this as a fine for not having insurance. Which basically is true. But again, even if you consider it a fine, that doesn't mean health insurance is mandatory. Feel free to pay the fine every year if you really hate having insurance.
Tax incentives, tax rebates, etc.. are certainly not unconstitutional.