General Observations

Michelle also wants to largely cut funding to vets. Shes an all around vile lady.

Simple, the insurance industry likes you having car insurance. They like you having regular insurance as well, they don't like the regulations that came down with this bill. It's funny that the majority of the rest of the world is laughing at us in regard to how silly the debate over this is.

Whats going on in the middle east has been extremely interesting. You can't get a decent picture watching the sad cable news in our nation. Al Jazeera has had some pretty amazing coverage of it. You can access the english stream here.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

So then by your logic, people who choose to participate in health deteriorating activities should be forced to get insurance, and if they don't they shouldn't?

Pretty sad mike, you being a supposed history teacher and everything. Their where several founding fathers that tried to include the end of slavery, but there was to much resistance from south slave state. God where did you get your education???? Captainobvious hit the nail on the head. Also if your so called explanation is to be believable then then the government could require everyone to by GM cars or dare I say a gun?

@Remmington81 lol!

Dawu, if you have anything intelligent to say by all means???? Please remember the word intelligent.

apparently, in mikes Okay version of revisionist history, 1775 was not around the founding of our nation, and Benjamin Franklin was not a founding father. Keep hitting the books mike!

I am in no way endorsing Bachmann BTW. I think she is somewhat of a nutbucket. And it is possible that she is being ignorant. But....accidentally or not, judging from mike's statements, she is more right than mike. I just thought I would point out that 2 ignorant people dont make an educated one, but they do make me laugh and laugh and laugh. This post is not political, just wanted to help mike improve his Historian Teaching skills.

Oh, and it is elicit, not illicit. Elicit is a verb, illicit is an adjective. they don't mean anywhere close to the same thing. And come to think of it, Elicit doesn't make a whole lot of sense in that sentance anyway.

captainobvious, you should know that mandatory health insurance is the brainchild of conservatives not liberals. Mandatory health insurance was a compromise that Republicans used so they would vote for the bill, which of course they didn't.

Yes Didymus, you're right, the post was not political nor was it a history lesson it was just flat out insults. At least be honest with yourself. Making fun of people for what you see as them being wrong is not a historical lesson it's just making fun of them.

Here's a history lesson for you:

There are three mentions of slavery in the constitution (slavery wasn't even mentioned in the Articles of Conferderation) the three-fifths clause (any person not free was counted as three-fifths of a person) which was a compromise for the southern states so they could count their slaves (Section 2 Article 1), the slave trade abolition in 1808 (Section 9 Article 1), fugitive slaves being returned to their states (Section 2 Article 4).

If there were a true fight about slavery there probably would have been more mention of slavery and ending it in the Constitution. Slavery did not become a true defining issue until the 1820s with the start of the Second Political Party System. It also wasn't at the forefront until the Industrial Revolution took hold in the United States pushed the northern states into a more industrial situation and the Second Great Awakening.

Slavery was just not a huge issue to the founding fathers.

Mike, I have no doubt the parents of McCook school children greatly appreciate your blog. How else could they find out how warped their children's education has become?

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in the spring of 1688...

The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage...was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as its first president...

The first article published in what later became the United States advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was allegedly written by Thomas Paine...

Through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 under the Congress of the Confederation, slavery was prohibited in the territories north west of the Ohio River. By 1804, abolitionists succeeded in passing legislation that would eventually (in conjunction with the 13th amendment) emancipate the slaves in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line...

New York Manumission Society. The last was headed by powerful politicians: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, later Federalists and Aaron Burr...

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787---

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787---

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787---

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, agreement was reached that allowed the Federal government to abolish the importation of slaves...

From Wikipedia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8kDG94kb8&feature=player_embedded

MrsSmith,

How nice of you to lead off with an insult. Civility lives strong inside of you, however;

If you are going to correct someone on history then you must get your own history correct. There was no America in 1688, America wouldn't exist for another 100 years.

Abolishing slavery north of the Mason-Dixie line is all well and good but that is hardly freeing all the slaves nor is it a true movement to free all the slaves.

Coincidentally in 1787 the first inroads of the Industrial Revolution had been introduced in the North. The end of slavery was never fully in doubt in the north as they moved from farming to industry which used skilled labor not slaves.

You also forgot one important aspect in your repetition above and it's probably why you ended the statement with ... instead of with the rest of the statement; "At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, agreement was reached that allowed the Federal government to abolish the importation of slaves..." what you left off was "until 1802". This was concession from the South in part because they had plenty of slaves (and more importantly slaves having babies) already in the South and they didn't depend on the slave trade in 1787 as much as they had just 20 years before.

Saying and doing are two completely different things MrsSmith. You can say all you want that you want to end slavery. You can even go as far as ending slavery in the north (where slavery was already coming to an end) but slavery was allowed to continue in the South and it was only the Civil War in the 1860s (nearly 80 years after the founding era) that slavery was brought to an end.

Naturally, we don't need to discuss that slavery was to an extent allowed to continue after the Civil War the term was just changed to share cropping.

It should be noted of course, that even when Lincoln ended slavery in the South through the Emancipation Proclamation he allowed slavery in the bordering states that stayed in the Union.

Bachmann stated that, "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," That statement is factually and historically incorrect. They didn't, in fact several founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson and George Washington) had slaves.

She went further though, stating that; "men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." While this statement is factually true it is historically wrong. John Quincy Adams is credited with helping to end slavery, but he was not a founding father.

Another one of her historically inaccurate statements had to do with men coming to this country in the founding era being equal no matter the "color of their skin", "language", or "economic status". None of that is historically accurate. For the first nearly 200 years of this nation skin color did matter, specifically in the south, but the north was not immune from casting their glances down on people of a different color. This was also very true of economic status in the north. If you were poor when you got off the boats in New York, you pretty much stayed that way once you got here.

In the perfect world that Bachmann apparently sees she would be right. The facts, however, just do not support her one bit.

Quotes taken from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/bachmann-founding-fathers-worked-tirelessly-s...

So, Obvious, I point out that the mandate you hate so much is actually the brainchild of conservatives not liberals and your response is more liberal bashing. Very nice.

Just a quick question, Obvious, can you tell me what liberalism is?

President Nixon supported mandated insurance as early as the 1970s. He can hardly be seen as a RINO. George H.W. Bush kept up the fight for a mandate in the 1980s. He was hardly a RINO either. Bob Dole made it part of his reform platform in 1994. He is definitely not a RINO.

Orin Hatch, in the 1990s he co-sponsored a bill that would have made the mandate law. Suddenly in 2008-2009 he saw it as a threat to liberty? The list of conservatives that supported mandated health insurance before Obama supported the same measure (and then all of a sudden it was a constitutional violation) is not a short one and certainly not populated by RINOs.

So a clear question and you won't answer? The doctor above says nothing about liberalism. You attached liberalism to his letter (if the letter is in fact real and written by an actual doctor).

It seems to be a simple question. What is the definition of liberalism? Not what you think liberalism is, not what you are willing to let other people tell you what liberalism is. You are intent to trash liberalism with every post and all I simply want to know from you is what liberalism is?

So I'll ask again obvious, what is liberalism?

By the way here is a link to the original letter:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/starner.asp

Apparently it was written to a newspaper and not the President of the United States, and the version on here has seen some nice editing from the original and as is typical adding or taking away from the original can completely change the context of the original intent. After reading the original letter, the good doctor seems more flumoxed by the woman's living choices than anything else. He only mentioned crisis of culture and never went in depth to it.

So, after reading the doctor's original letter he never once mentions anything about liberalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the federal government prohibited from mandating the citizens must own anything. Wasn't that left to the states to decide, as is the case with mandating ownership of automobile insurance? Isn't this what judge Vinson ruled on?

And the hypocrisy of FLOTUS, DNC convention if Charlotte NC because of great BBQ? Real healthy eating there, right FLOTUS.

Once again obvious, the question is quite simple. You gave what you believe liberalism is. That's not the question, the question is What is liberalism? What is the actual definition, not your own thoughts, not the doctor's (even though as it has been proven they weren't his words), but the actual definition.

All your post was yet another slam, it's not even a definition.

Although I have no idea of what you are saying in the second paragraph CPB, you're first paragraph is spot on, that is one of the reasons I never supported the mandate.

That doesn't however explain the many conservatives for the past forty years that supported the mandate until a Democrat actually got it passed into law.

I certainly know of no conservatives who ever supported a federally mandated health insurance program. As stated by captainobvious, those were more than likely RINO's trying to play favors with democrats and the media.

Wow RINOs have existed for over 40 years? That's amazing, just when it comes to mandates. So you believe Nixon, the first Bush, and Dole to be nothing but RINOs?

Of course that's the most obvious way to excuse a Republican from supporting something in the past they now don't support. They're just a RINO. Apparently that's all you have to say. No justifying why they supported it in the past, they are just simply a RINO.

"those were more than likely RINO's trying to play favors with democrats and the media."

This used to be considered compromise where lawmakers would get together and try to put new laws in place that had the best from both sides. Now it's RINOs and DINOs just trying to carry favors and not acting the way they are supposed to which is to be suspicious of the other side. Boy, how far we have fallen in the last twenty years.

remington stay away from South Dakota then, there is a bill passing through the state legislature that will make it law that every person owns a gun.

I see you still cannot discern the difference between a republican and a Conservative.

Just because you call someone a RINO doesn't mean they are not conservative, but like I said early you have no real way of defending against the fact that conservatives and Republicans supported mandated insurance until the Democrats passed it, now all of a sudden it is unconstitutional and any conservative that ever supported it is labeled as a RINO.

You know maybe it's you that can't discern the difference between the two. If so, instead of calling them RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) you would have called them CINOs (Conservatives in Name Only).

But I understand your debate tactic. Turn it on me so you don't have to defend conservatives that supported mandated insurance.

If your concerning yourself with 4 Conservative republicans who supported a mandate back in 1993, sure, you got it.

What about 2011, that's a little closer in terms of current events.

Reading the comments from this blog, and other blogs of Michael's , brings me to my conclusion. You can disagree politicly with Michael, but I would think twice about arguing history with him. I believe he is accurate in his own profession. A word of advice to everyone, when you send a link, know the credibility of the organization, or person that wrote it.

There's a saying, The world is flat and full of stupid people. I won't be that crud, l would agree that its full of people that are easily manipulated by others views, depending if it fits your similar view.

Myself included!

I disagree Keda46, Michael's history is as subjective as his politics. He uses many modifiers that don't really discredit others although he thinks they do.

He says no founding fathers worked to end slavery. Not true, several founders did work to end slavery, they just didn't succeed. He points out that slavery was abolished north of the Mason-Dixon Line but says that act is irrelevant. I disagree, I think things are done in steps. If he was an honest historian he would conceed that many founders didn't wish to argue slavery because they believed it would fade away on its own.

Did Michelle Bachman say John Quincy was a founding father?

Does it matter if a conservative or a liberal proposes something if it is unconstitutional? Where were all of the brave Liberals supporting the mandate for insurance when Republicans favored it?

I figured you for a blog flamer obvious, that last statement confirmed it. You have no interest in debating you just want to see how many insults you can throw into one post and then who will respond to those posts. It also goes a long way in showing why you will not define something you are insulting. You don't care about the definition you just want to insult.

Interesting Its, you quite clearly said that I stated that "no founding fathers worked to end slavery" yet I have looked through my blog and my posts and that is nowhere to be found. The closest I saw was a statement in my blog that the founding fathers never tried to end slavery. While there were founding fathers that were trying to end slavery it just was not a huge topic during the founding.

This is Bachmann's exact statement: "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

It seems very much as though she is including John Quincy Adams as a founding father. Note that she said the very founders followed by men like John Quincy Adams. It seems pretty cut and dry to me that she is including John Quincy Adams as a founding father which is factually and historically inaccurate.

"If he was an honest historian he would conceed that many founders didn't wish to argue slavery because they believed it would fade away on its own."

I have yet to see any documentation (ie papers, letters, etc) where founding fathers didn't argue slavery because they believed it would fade on its own. This is probably because they didn't believe that to begin with. Slavery didn't fade away on its own, a civil war had to be fought before slavery went away.

I don't know of any liberals who support or supported the mandate to begin with. That's probably a good indication of why no brave Liberals supported the mandate in the 90s.

If your concerning yourself with 4 Conservative republicans who supported a mandate back in 1993, sure, you got it.

What about 2011, that's a little closer in terms of current events.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 3:31 PM

I keep forgetting CPB that time means nothing to you unless it supports something you believe. You kept fighting that no conservatives ever supported mandated insurance saying that were RINOs then questioning whether I knew they difference between a conservative or a RINO when you interchanged the terms as well. Then at the point you decided that if it happened before 2011 it didn't matter, especially if it was as long ago as 1993.

So help me out here. Are you now saying that it only matters what they say now and that Republicans are the same as Conservatives (or least as long as you get to say that someone you don't view as a Conservative is a RINO)?

I understand, though with the time thing. What a person reported on their taxes in the 70s or 80s is important today but what a politician believed in the 90s has no bearing on today what-so-ever.

I WAS debating. You kept asking the same question over and over AFTER I answered the question. A little levity never hurt anyone. Lighten up !!!!

-- Posted by captainobvious on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 4:33 PM

No, you kept giving me your opinion and the made up opinion of a doctor as to what Liberalism is. You never answered what Liberalism actually is.

Making fun of gays, apparently is the new definition of levity in obvious' world.

Gee Mike, I conceded. After a little research, I did find 4 conservatives who, at the time, supported mandatory health insurance. But thanks for hitting me over the head with it again.

Actually, time means everything to me. Things that happened in the past does in fact affect our lives today. It is "today" that we live in. Things can be done today, to correct events of the past. Just look at slavery, no it was not outlawed during the days of our forefathers. But within 100 years, the United States of America did abolish it.

That's you conceding? Saying that they did support it but it doesn't matter now?

Slavery was only ended due to a Civil War. Had the South not seceded slavery would have continued.

My point was, that time only matters to you when it benefits your beliefs and ideas, if it doesn't you don't want any part of it. Almost every time that something is mentioned about Bush or something that happened during the 00s you revert to trying to nullify they point.

"Slavery was only ended due to a Civil War. Had the South not seceded slavery would have continued"-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:20 PM

Do you believe slavery would still be in existence today?

"That's you conceding? Saying that they did support it but it doesn't matter now?" Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:20 PM

Did their support then, have an impact today? NO.

"My point was, that time only matters to you when it benefits your beliefs and ideas, if it doesn't you don't want any part of it. Almost every time that something is mentioned about Bush or something that happened during the 00s ('00s?) you revert to trying to nullify they (their?) point" Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:20 PM

Huh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M

Thought you'd enjoy this. I was laughing quite a bit from it.

@Captain Your claim relies on erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven

However, not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven -- for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven -- and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions -- pointing this out is the same as disproving them

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way.

Sorry, but your magic book like the others is more than likely wrong.

I'm not familiar with his work, I'll take a look at it. While were at it though, you should check out Carl Sagans Demon-Haunted World.

I don't believe that argument works both ways as it is though. One is based on logic and reasoning, while the other is based on loosely tied together articles of faith.

@capt That is perhaps one of the most logical statements I've seen come out of these boards.

Let me try it again Chunky. Time only matters to you (personally you) when it supports something you believe. When time doesn't support what you believe you say that it is irrelevant.

No, I don't believe I ever said that slavery would still be going on today if the Civil War hadn't happen, but good job jumping to that conclusion.

What is more interesting is that the US had to have a violent confrontation to end slavery, whilst the majority of other nations were able to do it peacefully...

"Time only matters to you (personally you) when it supports something you believe. When time doesn't support what you believe you say that it is irrelevant." Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:02 AM

Proof please.

"No, I don't believe I ever said that slavery would still be going on today if the Civil War hadn't happen, but good job jumping to that conclusion" Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:02 AM

I don't believe I jumped to that conclusion at all. I was merely asking, if the South had not seceded from the union, would slavery exist today? If not, then how would it have ended? Your professional expertise please.

Chunky it was you who had a huge problem with the appointment of a man to a government position because of his tax records in the 1970s. Apparently someone's tax records from 30 years ago does matter today, yet someone's support of a mandate 17 years ago shouldn't matter one little bit.

Keeping with your statement that "Things can be done today, to correct events of the past," do you then believe it was wrong for the Republican Party to constantly go after John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election because he voted for the war in Iraq and then changed his mind and was against it? I'm sure you know the saying, he was for the war before he was against it? If, as you say things can be done today, to correct events of the past, then it shouldn't have mattered that John Kerry voted for the war then changed his mind, right?

I honestly don't know how much longer slavery would have continued in the South if not for the Civil War. Would it still be around today, no. We can look at share cropping for clues. Share cropping which, when looked at, was little more than a form of slavery, lasted in the South well into the 1940s. Some forms of it are still going on today. The bottom line, however, there is no certain way to answer what if questions on a historical perspective.

Damu, you can, in part, thank the Industrial Revolution for that. Specifically in Europe, the Revolution essentially made slavery obsolete. It simply was not needed anymore.

Of course, in Europe they had other methods other than slavery to do land work and slavery never became a huge institution in that region.

I had a huge problem with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's evading taxes from 2001 to 2005, and at the time of his appointment, was still refusing to pay. But look, if President Obama felt Geithner was the best man for the job, so be it. Surly our economy shows it.

So, no comment on the whole John Kerry before it before being against it campaign by the Republicans? If Republicans today can be excused for supporting mandated insurance in the 90s by being against it today, then were Republicans wrong for running against Kerry by proclaiming he was for the war before being against the war?

As it is, today freshman Republicans will get the government insurance that covers them and their families regardless of age or pre-exisitng conditions. There was a push during the health care debate to offer this very same, tax-payer paid for, insurance that was defeated by the Republicans.

Odd, then, that Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to repeal health insurance for millions of Americans because the cost is too high while they get free insurance thanks to the tax payers.

Of course, the bigger question is, if the economy is as bad off as they claim why are they then doing nothing about it?

"remington stay away from South Dakota then, there is a bill passing through the state legislature that will make it law that every person owns a gun."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 2:07 PM

You don't suppose that would be.....unconstitutional?

LoL

Michael - the "G" on the Green Bay helmet stands for "Great". A very little known piece of triva actually.

@Michael They have some ideas to reduce the budget. I'm not sure I really agree with them though.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/paul_ryans_budget_unnecessary_pain...

Mickel, thanks for the answer. I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever would, though it actually stands for Greatness, not just Great.

Depends on whether you are a states rights person or not I suppose.

Mike,

The reason the federal health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and the car insurance mandate is constitutional is not that difficult to understand. The federal government has less power than the states in the constitution. That's the way the document was meant to be written despite some people's objections today to put limits on federal government.

The states mandate car insurance and they can do that because of the 10th amendment which reserves that right to the States or to the people. If the states don't like what their State is doing then they can overturn that decision by a ballot initiative.

Part of the argument for constitutionality of the bill is the commerce clause which has been distorted over and over throughout our history. The problem comes when they say it falls under the commerce clause and the punishment for not purchasing is a "tax". Even if this was applicable under the commerce clause then an income tax on individuals would not have any applicability in a bill falling under the clause for commerce among the States. Therefore it would be a different form of tax which is subject to the census or enumeration requirements of the constitution and the way the bill is written, those requirements are not met which still make it unconstitutional.

I disagree with your assertion, obviously. The Constitution was written from a federal perspective. That is why there is only one true mention of states in the Constitution and that only states that any right not given to the federal government is given to the states (paraphrased of course).

To assert though that the Constitution was meant to limit the role of the federal government while given more power to the states is really unfounded. The Articles of Confederation certainly fit your idea but not the Constitution.

Meaning to write a document one way and how it is actually written are two totally different things. You can mean to do something all you want but unless you actually do it, it doesn't have much reality.

Actually there are two main mentions of the states. There is the section that says what they can't do and then there is the 10th amendment that says anything else goes for the states and the people. The States have more flexibility in their power than the federal government as granted by the wording of the constitution.

The federal government is only granted the specific power granted by the Constitution, nothing else. The constitution exempts the States and the people from that limitation. I don't know how much more obvious it can get that it's meant to put limitations on the federal government while allowing the states and the people to govern their personal affairs with as little intervention from the federal government as possible.

It's very clear in the constitution that they did not want to establish this new form of government only to suffer the same oppressions they had under the king and parliament in Britain.

It is entirely possible to have a strong federal government without suffering from the same oppressions of the king and parliament. Would you agree or disagree?

The federal government under our current Constitution is much stronger than the federal government envisioned under the Articles of Confederation and also much weaker than what Britain had at that time. The federal government's role in the United States is much stronger and was designed stronger than states rights people are willing to accept. The role of the federal government that states righters (I really dislike that term but what else is there) envision is the the government that was spelled out in the Articles. That government failed and it is one of the reasons the Articles were rejected and we now have the Constitution and the current federal system.

Mike,

Not without limiting the role of that government. Which is the same thing reflected in the Constitution. I saw it, the framers saw it and someday you will too. I don't know why you keep referring to the Articles of the Confederation because I have not mentioned them or quoted from them once. Everything I have stated has come straight from the Constitution. More than likely you had a discussion with someone who did that in a similar discussion and superimposed the assumption that I'm referring to them to but I'm not, I don't have to, all I need is the Constitution.

Just what are states rights people, Mike? I believe in states rights. Heck, I even believe in federal rights but all according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution not trying to use a commerce clause to penalize people for not buying a product or service. Btw, you're the history guy, what types of products and services were the colonists taxed for if they refused to purchase them?

McCook, so intent on insulting me and my intelligence, you didn't even consider the fact that I was comparing the two documents and what they offered. To use your phrase, more than likely, you are wrong, I didn't superimpose a previous conversation onto yours. I was using examples and comparisons.

"Not without limiting the role of that government." That's an obvious statement, but you can still have a strong federal government even with it limited from the English version that the framers were still trying to avoid. That's why there are three branches of government. Checks and balances.

You say that you believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution but you also believe that states' rights trumps that of the federal government, which doesn't fit with the Constitution. Had the framers wanted states to have more power than the federal government the framers wouldn't had written an entire section directing the states what they could and could not do without prior consent from the Congress (Article 1 Section 10).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

That is the only full mention of states in the Constitution.

The only other mention is in, as you said, the 10th Amendment. There really is not way to read that amendment in a strict way, in my opinion.

You will have to refresh me on the last question. I don't know of any products and services the colonists were taxed for if they refused to purchase them. There was the Sugar Act which put a tax on all imported good. Then there was the Stamp Act. Colonists, though, were not actually upset over the tax itself, but the fact that they had no representation in parliament. There was also the Townshend Acts, which was another tax on good. Again, with this one it was the no representation that angered the colonists not the taxes themselves.

Again, I'm not really sure what you were trying to set me up for with that question, but comparing taxation without representation (Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts) with a fine if you don't get health insurance is shaky at best.

I will say this the fine is not technically unconstitutional at all. The mandate (which I do not and have never supported) can fall under Article 1, Section 8 which clearly states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

As long as the fine is uniform across the United States it is acceptable under this Section.

Insult your intelligence?! Do tell, where did this happen?

I never once said that states' rights trump federal rights. The section that you are referring to is the section that tells the States what they can't do, it does not limit them in any way to the only things they can do like the rest of the Constitution limits the federal government and the 10th amendment says specifically that the powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States (the section you mentioned) are reserved to the States specifically or to the people.

Therefore, ANY power not reserved to the feds or specifically prohibited to the States in the Constitution, is a power that can only be possessed by the States or the people. With the health care law currently unconstitutional, the government can't legally enforce any aspect of it at the current moment in time. States could pass a mandate and they only have to meet the constitutional limits of their own State Constitutions.

As I said earlier, they put fewer limitations on States than they did on the federal government because a large centralized government with free reign to expand their rule over more and more aspects of a person's life was seen as a threat to what they were trying to establish. Personally, I don't know how anyone could misread the 10th Amendment, it's perfectly clear and I suspect that was by design too.

Mike, I wasn't aware of anything either but figured you would know if there were. I ask because this will be the first time in our history since the beginning of the Revolution that we are taxed not only the things we buy or the services we provide but also on the things we don't buy.

As for the section saying they must be uniform throughout the United States. If you read carefully, that is only addressing Duties, Imposts and Excises. It does not address Taxes are part of that clarification on uniformity of Duties, Imposts and Excises. It would have been contradictory to the Constitution to include Taxes in that definition since taxes were to be based on the census and enumeration requirements, that's why "Taxes" was left out of the uniformity clause. It's also why we needed the 16th Amendment to pass an income tax because technically income taxes are uniform throughout the US but they couldn't pass the Court system under the section you mentioned because "Taxes" were defined and regulated differently than Duties, Imposts and Excises. Not to mention that Duties, Imposts and Excises can only be charged on goods or services that are bought and sold. It can't be charged on goods or services that are not bought or sold.

The federal government can't charge you for not buying health insurance anymore than they can charge you for not buying vegetables.

I actually should have said this will be the first time EVER that we would be taxed on something we DON'T buy instead of since the Revolution. Kinda reads like we were taxed similarly before the Revolution but we weren't.

"With the health care law currently unconstitutional, the government can't legally enforce any aspect of it at the current moment in time."

You are incorrect on this. The health care law is not currently unconstitutional. Until the Supreme Court rules on the law the government can enforce all aspects of it. One judge has ruled one portion of the entire law unconstitutional and recommended that the entire law be thrown out. Other judges have ruled the entire law to be constitutional, while other judges have refused to make judgments on the law.

If you remember DADT, judges were ruling that law to be unconstitutional but it took an act of Congress to actually repeal the law. The other course would have been for the Supreme Court to rule on it.

As I have said I don't personally support the mandate but the mandate does not itself go into affect until 2014. Congress, instead of trying to repeal the entire law which is widely supported (the law, not the entire repeal) could just repeal that part of the law without affecting any other parts of it.

That's where you're wrong, Mike. The government would need an order from the court which stays the ruling of the latest court ruling, sometimes known as an injunction. Without it, it is unenforceable for anyone who would refuse to abide by its provisions. It doesn't matter if it gets to the Supreme Court or not because it is treated just like any other case and this case like all others can not be guaranteed to be heard by the Supreme Court yet anyhow so there is no legal standing to stay the ruling of the court.

Considering one court in another state has already ruled that the entire law is constitutional, which court in which state has power over the other?

It still goes back to my DADT statement. Courts continued to rule that DADT was unconstitutional. Yet the Obama Administration not only did not recognize these rulings, they told the Department of Defense to continue to enforce DADT.

Besides that, the judge in Florida did not throw out the law. He ruled that one piece was unconstitutional and suggested that the entire law be thrown out. His ruling actually has no bearing on the law at all. He did not order that any of the law not be enforced only suggested.

The last federal court to rule on an appeal is the governing law until contradicted on appeal by the court hearing that case.

I'm not arguing with you the the Obama Administration has shown blatant disregard for the law when rulings go against their policy, they've absolutely done that.

By declaring it unconstitutional, he doesn't have to require that the law not be enforced with additional language. It was declared unconstitutional and therefore has no legal authority, as of right now. That could always change with another court ruling but for right now, that's the status of the law... unconstitutional and unenforceable. If anyone needs an injunction, it's the government that needs one allowing it to carry out the law pending an appeal.