10+ States Lined Up To File Lawsuit After Obama Signs Health Care Bill.

[HeatDeath 430]

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country, yes?

What a bizarre analogy! Are you actually saying that because free human beings are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, that abstract, barely-understood-by-the-legislators-let-alone-by-the-principal-stakeholders pieces of legislation about which not the slightest trace of consensus exists should be given a similar benefit of the doubt? Did you really just ascribe civil rights to laws, equating them with people?

For the record, new laws are NOT people. Given the historical tendency of all government towards tyranny, new laws are quite rightly guilty until proven innocent. Indeed, there should be no such thing as controversial legislation. Communities quite rightly differ, one from another, about the appropriateness of any given law. By definition, any law that is controversial is being applied at too high a level of power, being forced upon too many people at once.

Whether you support this particular health care reform package or not, any sane observer must conclude that this entire clusterfudge of a legislative process has demonstrated, more clearly than any other process possibly could have, that there is nothing even vaguely resembling a national consensus on health care (or almost any other issue, for that matter).

In such a situation, where no national consensus exists, it is right and proper for the federal government to not touch it with a ten foot pole, and let the states work out their own solutions. One of the great central ideas of the American experiment, that has been sadly forgotten by almost everyone, is that not everything needs to be decided at a national level. Let each state develop it's own local consensus and solution.

Edited March 23, 2010 by HeatDeath

[luckytxn 2,264]

What a bizarre analogy! Are you actually saying that because free human beings are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, that abstract, barely-understood-by-the-legislators-let-alone-by-the-principal-stakeholders pieces of legislation about which not the slightest trace of consensus exists should be given a similar benefit of the doubt? Did you really just ascribe civil rights to laws, equating them with people?

For the record, new laws are NOT people. Given the historical tendency of all government towards tyranny, new laws are quite rightly guilty until proven innocent. Indeed, there should be no such thing as controversial legislation. Communities quite rightly differ, one from another, about the appropriateness of any given law. By definition, any law that is controversial is being applied at too high a level of power, being forced upon too many people at once.

Whether you support this particular health care reform package or not, any sane observer must conclude that this entire clusterfudge of a legislative process has demonstrated, more clearly than any other process possibly could have, that there is nothing even vaguely resembling a national consensus on health care (or almost any other issue, for that matter).

In such a situation, where no national consensus exists, it is right and proper for the federal government to not touch it with a ten foot pole, and let the states work out their own solutions. One of the great central ideas of the American experiment, that has been sadly forgotten by almost everyone, is that not everything needs to be decided at a national level. Let each state develop it's own local consensus and solution.

It has been decided by a huge civil war and many supreme court decisions that the Feds trump state law. It is the reason that we are allowed to change law by voting nationally for politicians that will make or change laws that we want.

[HeatDeath 430]

It has been decided by a huge civil war and many supreme court decisions that the Feds trump state law. It is the reason that we are allowed to change law by voting nationally for politicians that will make or change laws that we want.

That "huge civil war" was CAUSED by the federal government enacting, as I said, "controversial legislation about which there [was] no national consensus." D*mn near destroyed the country, too, as I recall. The side that can bring the more efficient and effective violence to the table is not always (and in fact, is probably rarely) the right one.

[is a Texan seriously taking an anti-state's-rights position with me? Have I accidentally sipped into Bizarro-world again? ]

Edited March 23, 2010 by HeatDeath

[HeatDeath 430]

Too many American politicians (and their followers) who came of political age during the early 60's, and since, seem to have learned a very toxic lesson from the Civil Rights movement: that the proper role of government - all government - is NOT to represent the people, but rather to improve them - to force unpopular progressive legislation upon an unenlightened, ignorant populous.

This is not a partisan view. The leaders of the Republicans and the Democrats are identical in this regard. They differ merely on the definitions of "unenlightened" and "progress".

Edited March 23, 2010 by HeatDeath

[Ali G. 37]

At one time in this country we took votes on things. Now it seems like we vote first and then let the lawyers handle it. Which 10 states are so flush they can afford to feed attorneys to litigate federal law? If there is some part they don;t like, wait fr it to be enforced and then appeal the conviction or enforcement of the law.

I just get sick of the "feed the lawyers" tactic. These stupid lawsuits will go on for years and years. There exists a way to repeal this law...repeal it. Seems to me the lawsuits will cost more than complying with the law and won;t help anyone but attorneys. I think the best thing we could do for our country, health care, and just about everything else, would be to randomly execute an attorney somewhere in this country every day. when enough of them bail out of the "profession" we will have a much more livable country with much lower medical costs.

Incidentally, the attorneys know that medical tort reform is next. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY the government can run healthcare and be subject to ridiculous lawsuits. They will NOT allow the parasitic attorneys to prey on them the way they allowed them to prey on the medical industry thus far.

Well said. If there is anything I hate more than lowlife murderers, it's dishonest lawyers and those who protect the aforementioned. As you pointed out, there is no way in the world a health care system will work if lawyers are able to sue a doctor or the system blind; as they do with everything else in America. Not going to happen period.

Just look at the lawsuit filed against NYC by the emergency workers of 9/11. While I disagree with this because it was their job, the lawyers received $200 million out of a $647 million payout - what an absolute joke.

[Ali G. 37]

Given the historical tendency of all government towards tyranny, new laws are quite rightly guilty until proven innocent.

This is 2010 and we have come a long way from tyrannical governments. Well the rest of the first world certainly has. A government is what you make it. Apparently here in the US, half of the voter base wants zero government period. Perhaps, I get out and pave my own road. I am sure some, including Rush, would certainly advocate for that. Yes Rush, the dropout who earns millions to talk ####### for few hours work a day. Yet calls people working 40 hours a week bludgers who deserve nothing - not even their dignity.

If you want to talk about what is actually tyrannical or oppressive, read up on the 1910's to 20's or the king and queen era you apparently escaped from. A time when elites and aristocrats called the shots, while the hard working Americans were exploited. Ring a bell? Hint: 2010 America.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Ali G.

[HeatDeath 430]

This is 2010 and we have come a long way from tyrannical governments. Well the rest of the first world certainly has. A government is what you make it. Apparently here in the US, half of the voter base wants zero government period. Perhaps, I get out and pave my own road. I am sure some, including Rush, would certainly advocate for that. Yes Rush, the dropout who earns millions to talk ####### for few hours work a day. Yet calls people working 40 hours a week bludgers who deserve nothing - not even their dignity.

If you want to talk about what is actually tyrannical or oppressive, read up on the 1910's to 20's or the king and queen era you apparently escaped from. A time when elites and aristocrats called the shots, while the hard working Americans were exploited. Ring a bell? Hint: 2010 America.

<Glances to his left and right to see if there is someone standing behind him>

I'm not quite sure who you're responding to, but I don't think it's me. I've never listened to Rush (the conservative talk radio host (whose primary schtick is still, as I mentioned above, the imposition of unpopular legislation upon an unenlightened left leaning populous) OR the Canadian icons of Rock ) in my entire life. I don't seem to recall advocating zero government. I just feel that government should be kept very local. A US state of 1-2 million people is about the most people that any government should ever control. It is virtually impossible for any real consensus to exist on any but the most rare and transient of issues for any length of time for any group larger than this. History has shown repeatedly, for at least the last 5000 years, that nation states at this scale can be reasonably free and prosperous, almost regardless of their specific system of government. But the only governmental entities that have had any stability at larger scales have been the brutally oppressive "great" empires.

I'm certainly not implying that any particular period of the 20th century was any more free than we are now, certainly not when the current population of Capitol Hill is more obviously aristocratic than it ever has been. Has any current member of Congress or the Senate ever been worth less than 6 figures? I agree emphatically that when no member of the allegedly "representative" governing assemblies falls outside the top 2% of the wealthiest citizens of that republic, then that republic can be more accurately described as an aristocracy.

Which only agrees with and emphasizes my previous point. Given that we have a system of government with an unacknowleged (and therefore unhealthy) tendency towards aristocracy, we should learn, as history teaches, that the only way aristocrats have ever remained non-tyrannical for any length of time is when they controlled relatively small territories, and governed with at least vague lip-service towards desiring the consent of the governed (or at least fearing revolution).

History also teaches that aristocracies are really only stable when the population is divided into organic nations - groups of people with a similar cultural worldview and shared heritage. Some regions within the US may constitute "nations" in this sense, but the US as a whole is emphatically not "one nation". It is at least two: "Red" and "Blue" in the political vernacular, and probably at least 3-4 more. Historically, the only way multiple nations have ever stayed bound together in any one political structure for any length of time has been for the binding political structure to be an externally imposed empire. Empires have never been stable for more than a few hundred years at a time and when they fracture (and they always do) it is along national lines.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is 2010 and we have come a long way from tyrannical governments. Well the rest of the first world certainly has. A government is what you make it. Apparently here in the US, half of the voter base wants zero government period. Perhaps, I get out and pave my own road. I am sure some, including Rush, would certainly advocate for that. Yes Rush, the dropout who earns millions to talk ####### for few hours work a day. Yet calls people working 40 hours a week bludgers who deserve nothing - not even their dignity.

If you want to talk about what is actually tyrannical or oppressive, read up on the 1910's to 20's or the king and queen era you apparently escaped from. A time when elites and aristocrats called the shots, while the hard working Americans were exploited. Ring a bell? Hint: 2010 America.

Sorry, I don't agree with you there. We have not come a long way from tyrannical government which is WHY I do not wish to be governed by litigation. Courts are part of the government, they do not legislate in this country. Government by litigation IS tyrranical. We are a representative Republic. Our elected representatives voted for this health care reform vomit. It IS political vomit. we can UN-elect them, then UN-elect President Obama and repeal the political vomit the way it was implemented.

I do not agree with trying to remove it with litigation and do not agree with other litigation to do the same with other laws. I have no problem with Gay marriage, for example, Vermont enacted a Gay marriage law by a majority vote of both houses of the legislature which was signed into law by our 4 term Republican governor. We did not have it crammed down our throat by one or two unelected judges.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Given the historical tendency of all government towards tyranny, new laws are quite rightly guilty until proven innocent.

Absolutely! This is why every bill that the Congress passes is evaluated by the Supreme Court before it can become law. Because, according to your logic, any bill is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise. You really crack me up.

As Maurice Maeterlinck once said: “At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.” Take notice that those 10,000 guys just fell. And towards the future we continue.