March 22, 2010
Patrick Lynch Not Interested in Challenging the Federal Government's Power to Impose a Purchase Mandate on Individuals
According to Steve Peoples of the Projo's 7-to-7 newsblog, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (to no one's surprise, really) is not interested in joining a potential lawsuit by the states challenging the Federal government's power to require that individuals purchase something...
"I don't like a lot of the decisions that the legislature makes every day. Do I go up and sue them? And do you have the basis to do so, more to the point?" Lynch said in a late-morning interview, characterizing the looming lawsuits in a dozen states as "political posturing....But at the outset, moments after the vote, when they're crying and putting up [lawsuit threats] on Facebook in Texas first, there's a procedure that we go through as attorneys general when something is more substantive, and this seems to be a partisan driven mechanism," said Lynch, a Democratic candidate for governor."To me it's a moment that should be celebrated," he said of Sunday's health-care vote.
11/10:patrick who??
11/10:david who??
Lynch and Cicilline will be footnotes this fall.
Watch out for Cicilline's dog droppings:Fernandez and Tavarez.Continuations of his crap trail.
I have read they will claim its a tax so that states will not be able to get out from under.
Posted by: doughboys at March 22, 2010 4:47 PMSeems to me that being the AG of any state should hold the prerequisite of holding the laws of that state as supreme. If the laws of the state must be subjugated to the strength of the federal, as Mr. Lynch seems to hold, then it would appear that he finds himself to be just another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
What exactly is your job, Mr. Lynch?
Posted by: Tim Sullivan at March 22, 2010 5:12 PMGuess Steve Peoples has the number to the 'Cathouse'.
Pubescent Patrick speaks his usual nonsense. Thankfully not for much longer.
While I’m a big believer in the 10th Amendment, there is also Article 6, which reads in part:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
That basically says that federal law trumps everything else.
The 10th Amendment reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It would seem that Article 6 is in conflict with the 10th Amendment. The article came first, but the 10th is an “amendment” which means there was an attempt to change prior meaning.
So which one supersedes the other?
Posted by: Patrick at March 22, 2010 9:03 PMThere is no conflict. The 10th Amendment says that only those powers enumerated in the Constitution belong to the feds, and Article 6 is in the Constitution.
The problem arose beginning in the late 1800s and really hit its stride in the late 1930s-early 1940s after FDR packed the Court with Progressive justices. The "laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof" became subject to such far-fetched interpretation that unless we undo several precedents the feds treat the Constitution as infinitely elastic to serve their purposes.
Posted by: BobN at March 22, 2010 9:28 PMBut Bob, until Article 6 is struck down, it does say "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
and the 10th Amendment is "in the Constitution". So that counts as "notwithstanding". So it would seem that "the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
Thus, federal law overrides state law. Are laws different from rights? 10th Amendment says any power not mentioned in the Constitution goes to the states, but power isn't necessarily the same thing as "law" is it?
I can certainly see someone making the case that all federal laws come before any state laws.
Posted by: Patrick at March 22, 2010 9:33 PMI'm going with Bob on this one.
Congress has not enumerated the Constitutional rights in the bill so the 10th takes precedent.
There wouldn't be 37 states (except RI) that is willing to sue the government unless they thought they were in their rights.
I think it was Arizona where the Governor is going to file the suit because their AG won't do it.
I read that as they are chickens, they are chickens that expect to receive some support from the DNC in their bid for elevated office.
The good news for us is that now Lynch is added to the pile of 'like-new, used once' Democrats that will appear on Craigslist in November.
We will not forget.
Posted by: Roland at March 22, 2010 10:15 PMBut are "rights" different from "powers"? They have the "power" to make a law forcing someone to purchase something. One could say they're not creating a new "right" like voting rights for women or people of color, or right to free speech or assembly. They're merely creating a new unfunded mandate.
I guess we'll see pretty soon how the US Supreme Court thinks about it. And I guess at this point, there's nothing stopping Congress from creating a 28th Amendment and making all points moot.
Posted by: Patrick at March 22, 2010 10:24 PMAnd not that the Supreme Court would ever hold a grudge, but let's not forget how they were embarrassed at the State Of the Union address.
Nah, they wouldn't do that, now, would they?
Posted by: Roland at March 22, 2010 11:43 PMPatrick,
Article VI reads, in part...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...The key is that laws that have been made in Pursuance to the COnstitution have a very specific scope; they are laid out in Article I, section 9. The question is, what power delegated to Congress in that section would allow Congress to impose a mandate that individuals purchase something?
In one sense, this idea has always been taken very seriously through the history of the Constitution. It's why many amendments end with "Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation", because when something changes from its original state, Congress has to explicitly be given the power to enforce that change. On the other hand, the Federal government has expanded the defintion of the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly as to include many things that the founders probably wouldn't have extended it to.
As Andrew said. Or for that matter what power does Congress have to regulate a transaction between a doctor and a patient in the same state?
It is time to reverse the decision from the FDR-packed court that all commerce is interstate commerce.
Posted by: BobN at March 23, 2010 8:52 AMThink we'll see Governor Carcieri file suit on behalf of Rhode Island. Seems to me the states have multiple legit grievances to pursue. The unfunded mandates alone from MarxistCare will crush Rhode Island if nothing is done.
Posted by: Tim at March 23, 2010 8:54 AMPatrick:
That works well, until you consider the rest of the Constitutions relation to both Article 6 and to the 10th. Federal supremacy is granted only in the areas in which the Constitution specifically prescribes. If creating federal health care mandates is not one of the powers specifically delegated to the federal government, then it is to be reserved to the people or the several states.
Even with the loosest understanding of the General Welfare clause, it is not applicable to this legislation, as not all states or citizens recieve equal benifit.
Posted by: Tim Sullivan at March 23, 2010 9:08 AMPatrick:
That works well, until you consider the rest of the Constitutions relation to both Article 6 and to the 10th. Federal supremacy is granted only in the areas in which the Constitution specifically prescribes. If creating federal health care mandates is not one of the powers specifically delegated to the federal government, then it is to be reserved to the people or the several states.
Even with the loosest understanding of the General Welfare clause, it is not applicable to this legislation, as not all states or citizens recieve equal benifit.
Posted by: Tim Sullivan at March 23, 2010 9:09 AMYou folks are grasping at straws. Also, it appears that the right in this country does not believe in elections, laws or majority rule. They are acting like Brown Shirts, and more and more leaving behind any reasonable person who would normally support them. But keep at it - it will be good for our democracy for all of you and your KKK and John Birch Society Friends to fade back into the pit.
Somehow, you dismiss the whole idea of the constitution, and then take an amendment which basically says:
"those little things not covered by acts of Congress are the responsibility of the state" and take that to mean that states rights trumps Federal Law. It is not so. It never has been so. Hopefully, it never will be so - or you and I and everyone else will end up being very sorry.
Maybe you should read about the early Republicans - those who the right like to say express their ideals - like Madison:
"The "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document"
"He soon grew alarmed at the fragility of the Articles of Confederation, particularly the divisiveness of state governments, and strongly advocated a new constitution."
"He envisioned a strong federal government that could overrule actions of the states"
And that is a CONSERVATIVE.
Truth is, you radical righties of today are much closer to the German brownshirts than you are to any of the founding fathers.
I hope the backlash against the far right - which seems to be starting now - swells up to a crescendo. I will do my best to help it along.
I'm all for being conservative fiscally, but these neo-con radical ideas are something new.
Posted by: Stuart at March 23, 2010 2:07 PM"But keep at it - it will be good for our democracy for all of you and your KKK and John Birch Society Friends to fade back into the pit."
I don't know where you get this stuff. I've never knowingly known a member of either organization.
Hey, while we're using these sorts of generalizations and because people like Stuart believe that the US government is snooping in on every possible conversation, let me just tip them off. Stuart is a practicing member of al Queda. He has direct connections to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kuwait. He is a part of a sleeper cell in southeast New England. If any government organization wants to find out what they have planned, they can simply search Stuart's home and belongings and find quite a bit.
Pretty similar accusations, dude.
Posted by: Patrick at March 23, 2010 9:03 PMPatrick, Stuart is not preaching armed revolution or the repeal of congressional laws. Stuart is not yelling "baby killer" in the halls of Congress, nor calling for other than majority rule.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does not, cast it aside. I am certain that you and many others here are not radical right, but then again I see some promoting everything from overthrow of the government to armed attacks on their fellow Americans.
That is crazy stuff. The Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh stuff is nutty too.
Unfortunately, any reasonable conservatives are being overshadowed by the GOP radical right, which now includes a number of politicians also.
The right should drop all that racist and neocon and social conservative stuff and concentrate on something which does not put others down.....maybe like FREEDOM>
Posted by: Stuart at March 23, 2010 10:00 PMObviously, Stuart thinks everyone who opposed the handgun ban in Washington D.C. on second Amendment grounds was a racist, because they were challenging an act of Congress.
And Massacusetts AG Martha Coakley's challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage act (which was passed by Congress to become law) is obviously the deperate act of a bitter racist. No wonder why she lost her Senate election.
And when groups who support the legalization of marijuana challenged the Congressionally passed Controlled Substances Act, and specifically the Federal Government's power to regulate marijuana use within a state under the interstate commerce clause, racists every one!
Becasue in Stuart's mind the powers of Congress are unlimited, and that whole Article I section 9 thing is just a list of suggestions. Congress will take whatever power it wants for itself, text of the Constitution be damned, and there will be no dissent. Or else you will be called a racist.
Some people feel that the "radical right" is anything more conservative than the most liberal Republicans in congress; while at the same time clinging to willful ignorance like some sort of Tibetan prayer stone, refusing to admit that the single most liberal president in the history of our nation prior to President Obama was George W. Bush, having completely bought into the propagated false choice dilemma.
Truth be told, Stuart would likely benefit from a head first plunge into the early history of our government, using The Federalist Papers as a primer. Admittedly, it can be difficult to discover and admit to oneself that our brief history of Presidential deities weren't actually deities at all, and instead were just flawed and ambitious men like the rest of us. The things they were purported to have accomplished for the betterment of us all having not been accomplished for the reasons given to our children in history books, and most of the lauded accomplishments being nothing more than poorly designed houses built on a foundation of sand.
Truth be told, Stuart, we are not a democracy, and never were intended to be one. Majority rule was not the desire of our founders, nor could it be justly desired by any thinking man of our times. Majority rule is nothing short of a rough tyranny of the majority, wielding the power of fifty-one kings in any group of one hundred.
And to be intellectually honest, Stuart, yes, you are advocating the repeal of law. Two hundred thirty four years of consistent American law, to be exact. What was the health care bill if not the repeal of existing law in preference to bold new law?
Posted by: Tim Sullivan at March 24, 2010 1:19 AM We are not a democracy.
Thank you, Tim, for enlightening me.
I guess we'd be still be using the "whites only" and "colored" fountains if we were,
Maybe all the rhetoric about liberty and freedom really is a bunch of hooey.
Rhody:
While I appreciate the much needed laugh your use of hyperbole gave me, it might be useful to chart the growth and expansion of the application of natural rights over the course of human history, rather than try and herd them into a neat little myopic box for the purposes of making weak and logically fallible arguments on the Internet.
If you can draw conclusions about a lack of love for liberty from my prior posting, then I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by: Tim Sullivan at March 24, 2010 12:27 PMRhody-the era of segregation was nothing more than defiance of the 14th and 15th amendments which went unchallenged for so lon.BTW Woodrow Wilson segregated the armed forces.What a sin!!It would take a non-veteran like Wilson to institute such an evil system.
Race don't mean sh*t in a war.It shouldn't mean sh*t anywhere else either,but we're not there.
Truman,a WW1 veteran integrated the armed forces.Days lesson over.
And since Rhody raised it, let's recall for him that the most virulent and vile practitioners of segregation and racism were his beloved Democrats.
It's funny how the Leftists are the only ones in America who care about what color a person is. Conservatives have been far more evolved on that issue since the late 18th century.
Posted by: BobN at March 24, 2010 9:31 PMI wonder if shallow "thinkers" like Rhody and "Stuart" know who William Wilberforce was.Of course those twits would consult Google before answering.
Posted by: joe bernstein at March 25, 2010 6:23 PM