"Based on the data, The Washington Post estimated that 88,000 Tennesseans likely would have voted, if not for the new law."
Based on the data?
Ha! It is based on nothing but them pulling a number out of their butt.
Neither the GAO or the Washington Post is capable of actually empircally proving that the voter ID law had any effect on voter turnout at all.
Correlation doesn't prove causation.
Never has and never will.
And here is some excellent commentary regarding the Hobby Lobby court case that points out the absurdity of the leftist spin that foiling their ability to use the force of government to make someone else give them something makes THEM "victims".
Here is an exerpt:
"Supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) say the court decision permits the favored employers to make health-care decisions for women. No it doesn't. It only prohibits women, unfortunately in only a narrow set of cases, from being able to use government to force their employers to pay for those decisions. When did we start equating the right to buy contraceptives—which hardly anyone disputes—with the power to compel others to pay? It is demagogic to insist that prohibiting the latter violates the former.
Equally ridiculous is the claim that if employers choose not to pay for their employees' birth control, employers are forcing their religious beliefs on employees. If that were true, it would also have to be true that a non-Christian's refusal to pay for a Christian's transportation to church on Sundays would be equivalent to forcing the non-Christian's religious beliefs on the Christian. That's ridiculous.
But, say the ACA's supporters, contraception is important to women's health care and can be expensive. Let's grant both points. So what? How can that justify forcing employers to pay? That is the question. By what right does someone resort to the aggressive power of government to obtain something he or she cannot or does not want to pay for? (It is not only low-income women who qualify for free contraceptives.)"
Well you are wrong as usual, Collins.
The only legitimate way to change the meaning of anything in the Constitution is the explicit amendment process set forth within that document.
"Holy crap! I thought Doyle was kidding. Gilbert, you have just placed yourself above the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional."
I have placed myself with the literal text of the Constitution - the interstate commerce clause in this instance - and the writings of James Madision. Madison. Both Madison and Hamiltom made it quite clear in the federalist papers that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to prevent the state governments from enacting protectinist laws that would interfere in the free flow of private commerce. It's purpose was not to enable to federal government to micromanage private commerce.
Madison was the author of the interstate commerce clause and therefore his words are the ulitmate authority on the matter. Any Supreme Court decisions that do not comport with that are automatically wrong - period.
"Not to nit-pick, but the ACA was found by the Supreme Court to be constitutional."
And they were flat out wrong.
Just as they flat out wrong in Wickard vs Filburn when the court ruled that the federal goverment could regulate how much wheat a farmer could produce even though he was using it all himself and not selling it to anyone either in state or out state. The ruling was flat out absurd on it's face. The court invented the concept completely out of thin air that the government could not only regulate actual commerce but anything that the government claimed "had an effect" on commerce. That bogus concept led to a massive expansion in government power - every bit of it unconstitutional.
And regarding Supreme Court decisions related to Obamacare, there is another one coming up that is of far more import than this one.
In his typical disregard for law, the Obama administration directed the IRS to "interpret" the ACA to mean that people who signed up for insurance via the federally run exchanges are eligible for federal insurance subsides as well as those who signed up via state created exchanges. The literal text of the law specificies that only those who sign up via state created exchanges are eligible for those.
If all those folks who signed up via federal exchanges who thought they were going to get a subsized premium get that yanked out from under them, there will be a lot of people cancelling their insurance and deciding its' better just to pay the penalty.
Or cancel and NOT pay the penaly. The only enforcement mechanism the ACA affords to the IRS to collect the penalty is to withhold it from a person's tax refund check. If people decided to adjust their witholding allowances so that they never get a refund, the IRS cannot make them pay it.
All Comments »
The SouthComm Set
Medical News Papers |
All contents © 1995-2014
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation