|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scalia is a Scoundrel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No part of the Constitution repeals the first part of that section, and no part repeals the rest of it which says:
quote:You don't get to ignore that part of the constitution just because you don't like it. The ACA started in the house, passed, was amended by the Senate per that article, passed, and the House (as is common) chose to let it go as it was. Perfectly constitutional. {ABE}
You say they can't insist.
Of course they can. They can insist that the amended bill be re-presented for a House vote, or a conference committee resolve the differences. They chose not to. {ABE 2}
Now please explain what the word 'ALL BILLS' mean if it does not mean 'ALL BILLS'.
It means "ALL BILLS". What does "the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
Read my message below the one I am replying too. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi JonF,
JonF writes: The ACA started in the house As I said in the message you replied too. HR 3962 was started in the House.H.R. 3590 was started in the Senate. Reid could not get enough support to pass the House Bill but Pelosi was able to get enough votes in the House to pass the Senate Bill. The Senate Bill H.R. 3590 became the law. End of discussion. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) originated in the Senate.
H.R. means House of Representatives. Any bill labeled HR started in the House of Representatives.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act House bill", HR 3962 originated in the House.
Cool. So what?
Harry Reid could not get enough support in the Senate to pass the House bill HR 3962. Nancy Pelosi having a democratic majority in the House mustered enough votes to pass the Senate Bill H.R. 3590.
Yup. All Constitutional. Except it's the Senate version of HR 3590, which by definition did not originate in the Senate.
So the Senate Bill H.R. 3590 is the one that became law. So how do you determine the bill H.R. 3590 originated in the House?
Easy-peasy. It was named:
H.R. 3590. A bill that originated in the Senate would be S. 3590.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
HR 3962 was started in the House.
Yes.
H.R. 3590 was started in the Senate.
No. H.R. 3590 as passed by the House was amended in the Senate, as explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Details matter, especially in law. Saying that H.R. 3590 started in the Senate is flat-out false: the name itself tells you that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As I said in the message you replied too. HR 3962 was started in the House.H.R. 3590 was started in the Senate. Reid could not get enough support to pass the House Bill but Pelosi was able to get enough votes in the House to pass the Senate Bill. The Senate Bill H.R. 3590 became the law. End of discussion. Well, we could still discuss what you think H stands for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2400 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
foreveryoung writes: So the senate or the president or the boy scouts can write revenue raising bills if SCOTUS says its constitutional? According to the constitution, what the SCOTUS says is constitutional IS constitutional. Doesn't mean that it's right, or moral, but merely constitutional. Some body has to have the final word on what is constitutional and what is not and the constitution makes the SCOTUS the final arbiter. Just the way it is. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 884 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
H.R. means House of Representatives. Any bill labeled HR started in the House of Representatives. I found this site which shows the version of HR3590 that was introduced in Sept, 2009. Yes, clearly it originated in the House. But, it's original version was a bill intended
quote: with the short title of "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009." The Bill was passed by the House and placed on the Senate calendar in Oct. 2009. The Senate then appears to have "amended" the Bill and the amended version is found here (the 7 versions of the bill are available from a drop down menu on the right side of the page). This "amendment" bears no resemblance to the original bill and was intended as a substitution
quote: I had not heard this claim that the ACA had been initiated in the Senate before, and maybe I don't really understand the significance or legality (or constitutionality) of the issue, but it seems a bit shady to "amend" a Bill by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with something completely different. Also note that the Senate version was dated Nov. 2009 - only a month after it was put on the calendar. The text of the substitution must have been drafted before the bill was even placed on the Senate calendar (the rate government moves it would have taken at least a month just to cut-n-paste the text into the body of the bill). So it does appear that HR3590, as passed DID originate in the Senate, but was hidden or "substituted" for a bill that had originated in the House. I had a similar complaint when the grey wolf was de-listed. The problem was that the rider to remove the wolf from the endangered species list was included (buried) in a budget bill - at a time where passage of the budget was extremely time sensitive, threatening government shut down. Even if there was objections to that rider, it was not going to be addressed because of the urgency of the budget bill. While it may be perfectly legal, it takes advantage of loopholes to push forward an agenda. It seems to me that although it may be "constitutional" it seems rather unethical. Its a shell game. What do you think? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It seems to me that although it may be "constitutional" it seems rather unethical. Its a shell game. I'm not sure unethical is applicable but it definitely is a shell game and has been going on as long as I have been following Congress so well over a half century. Unfortunately it is not a tactic most folk are aware of; yet another example of the failure of our educational system. It's stuff like this, the boring details of how the US governs itself that we really need to be teaching the kids.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems to me that although it may be "constitutional" it seems rather unethical. Its a shell game. I'm not sure which code of ethics it breaches. In an actual shell game, someone goes home without their pants, and this is a problem. Substitute amendments are just a technical convenience for legislators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It seems to me that although it may be "constitutional" it seems rather unethical. Its a shell game. What do you think? Please describe the ethical question involved. Some thing are wrong because they are inherently bad, while other things are wrong because they are prohibited by law. In this case, the result was an expedited entry of a bill in a situation where the Democrats had control of both chambers but were still subject to procedural tactics by the Republicans to prevent things from getting done quickly. Exactly which tactics were unethical in that situation? Given that the practice has been used before by Republicans and Democrats alike, it seems instead to be a mere procedural maneuver. Exactly what evil was wrought by the tactic?
So it does appear that HR3590, as passed DID originate in the Senate, but was hidden or "substituted" for a bill that had originated in the House. In what sense was the bill 'hidden'? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Well, this is disingenuous. It would be one thing to insist that these four words must take precedence over the legislative intent, but it is quite another thing to insist that they must express the legislative intent. In defense of Scalia, I will suggest here that he probably had no intention of opining on what Congress intended. I spent some time this afternoon looking at Scalia's writing on the topic, and it is pretty clear that Scalia is completely disdainful of the use of legislative intent. He has been consistently dubious about using it. In fact, he sometimes takes the trouble of castigating his colleagues for referring to the legislative history even when he agrees with the Court's decision. Given Scalia's position on legislative intent, it was inevitable that he reach the conclusion he reached. Given that context, I would interpret Scalia's remarks to be directed to the plain text of the statute, and accordingly I would suggest that his remarks are not scoundrel like. On the other hand, Scalia is far less hesitant about looking at original intent and historical context when it comes to the constitution. One might argue that to be an inconsistency, but of a lesser magnitude. ABE: The link below is to an article that I think does show the scoundrel that Scalia is. The article takes Scalia to task for his shoddy defense of his 'no legislative history' policy. I found the reading quite entertaining. The New Republic
quote: Ignoring contrary evidence and declaring himself correct. Ain't that just like a wingnut? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think not. He says "And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words "by the State" other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges." This is an argument about the legislative intent: not the bare meaning of the clause, but the reason and the purpose behind it. Now, we know that the bill had no such purpose as he pretends and that the reason was that someone was careless in drafting it --- and Scalia knows this too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AbE: It occurs to me later that I missed that there's probably a clear distinction between "overall statutory scheme" and "legislative intent". The former only deals with what a bill says, while the latter includes not just the bill but also the prior legislative process and debate. I leave what follows unchanged, but what it should have said is that I think ignoring legislative intent is highly questionable, but it doesn't make Scalia an idiot. But taking the "overall statutory
scheme" into account for bills he likes and not for other bills he doesn't like does make him a scoundrel. NoNukes writes: In defense of Scalia, I will suggest here that he probably had no intention of opining on what Congress intended. I spent some time this afternoon looking at Scalia's writing on the topic, and it is pretty clear that Scalia is completely disdainful of the use of legislative intent. He has been consistently dubious about using it. In fact, he sometimes takes the trouble of castigating his colleagues for referring to the legislative history even when he agrees with the Court's decision. Given Scalia's position on legislative intent, it was inevitable that he reach the conclusion he reached. When I introduced this thread in Message 1 I quoted Scalia quoting another case that said it must be kept in mind the "fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." I interpreted "overall statutory scheme" as the overall legislative intent of a bill, and I figured it referred to how to address a very common situation arising when a bill is redrafted, that not every passage that needs to be changed (say, after debate strikes a compromise) is changed or changed properly, which made it seem that Scalia had argued that legislative intent was important, especially given how often the wording of bills must be ambiguous, contradictory or in some way flawed. What's more, that seems the only reasonable position, because people aren't perfect and never will be perfect, and these bills can be massive. HR 3590 is 974 pages (see this PDF of the Affordable Care Act - the portion recently before the Supreme Court is on page 110). What's more, since there were no federal exchanges in the original version of the bill, only state exchanges, having places in the bill that were missed or improperly updated when later revisions were made is precisely the kind of error one would expect. If Scalia's legal philosophy ignores legislative intent then he's less a scoundrel and more an idiot. --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think not. He says "And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words "by the State" other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges." I think given Scalia's history that parsing the sentence to this extent is not justified. I understand your argument, but I think Scalia is sticking to his policy simply refusing to consider the 'legislative history' by which I mean the writings and speeches given by Congressmen during the process of introducing and enacting the bill. If there is any intent or purpose to be gathered, Scalia insists on gathering it from the text alone. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024