Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by scoutpilot, Jun 28, 2012.
Buy your health insurance. And a Medal of Honor, if you feel like it.
So if it is constitutional to wear medals/awards you have not earned, wouldn't any military policy/regulation suggesting otherwise be unconstitutional.
I'm no Chief Justice of the Supreme Court though, what would I know?
No, because the military falls into a special legal realm wherein certain abridgments of free expression are allowed.
Maybe I should have stayed in longer.... tested that theory out. Four rows of ribbons just never seemed like enough.... I should have put on eight rows... maybe 10 for good measure.
Remember too however; while I'm glad the Stolen Valor was struck down, that doesn't mean that it's open season for free General Officer rank and War heros. If "ANY" fraud or deception is committed for the purpose of financial or physical gain, criminal charges can be brought up. I.e. You can walk around central park dressed as a 4 star general and tell fake war stories until you're blue in the face. That's freedom of expression. However; if you have a hat on the sidewalk while you're telling these war stories and are "Expecting" or "Grateful" for donations that were given under the believe that you were associated with the military in a specific manner; then that is deceit and fraud, and you can be prosecuted. Same with giving paid speeches; applying for a job; soliciting discounts, loans, etc...
So I am not disappointed at all in the Stolen Valor act being struck down. Less control the federal government has on our rights, the happier I am. But that doesn't mean a person is allowed to deceive or defraud someone else out of money, products, or services.
As for ObamaCare, I am disappointed. Mainly, because most people never read the actual law and doesn't understand what we're heading for. Too much to discuss here. But the truth is, I'm definitely disappointed in it.
That's ok. There are plenty of us that are happy with it to provide some balance.
Not 100% sure how I feel about the whole Health Care debate, of course my opinion is quickly being swayed. I am a small business employer, just received an email from my Insurance agent, my health care for my employees is going up 22% now for the next quarter.....Boy they didn't waste any time, they must have had these emails poised to go out as soon as the decision came down.
I'm sure going to be interested to see how they claim this will bring Health Care costs down, we're sure not seeing any eveidence of a decrease.
I understand your position. I watch the RAND output of papers on the subject and usually go by their positions.
Now I can wear my Three MOH and six AFC at the Memorial Day parade. That is if they haven't also overturned the law making it a felony for possesion of a unearned MOH. Disapointed is an understatement. What does this mean for my privately purchased current insurance and Medicare B? Hope you all ready to pay for mine. Thank you all.
Between these two rulings and the Arizona immigration law being struck down, the S.C. has gone way to the left recently. Have to say I'm disappointed with John Roberts.
Except it has become considerably more conservative recently.
My guess is many business owners aill make a decision to pay the fine(tax) rather than provide insurance. This will get the ball rolling towards the single payer system.
I simply don't agree that it has gotten more conservative recently. Any court that could vote to uphold the largest single tax increase in U.S. history (in total dollars) certainly isn't going to the right end of the spectrum. Likewise with the Arizona ruling. Now a state can't even enforce federal law when the feds themselves won't support their own laws. Conservatives are also the most likely to be outraged at someone wearing a medal that they didn't earn in the military. Yet the S.C. decided that was a matter of "free speech". These aren't acts of conservatism at all. Your link traces back court cases over a number of years. That's fine. I was saying that in the past several weeks or so, the S.C. has gone decidedly left-wing in its rulings.
Mother Jones, lol. Objectivity at its finest.
What a shocker that they come to that conclusion. I would guess that American Spectator, Heritage Foundation, or Fox News has a different opinion.
Those who would be happy here are likely still suckling from the teat of the federal government. Remember, it's not all Tricare and roses....
I pointed to their link because the charts are easiest to read there. The Martin-Quinn scale gets used a lot and Mother Jones just happened to have the most readable charts (WITH THE SOURCE BELOW THEM). If a liberal rag said the earth was round, would you scream liberal conspiracy? At least look at the sources for the charts first.
Is this better?
Or this (academic journal on the scale)?
Now, go find some papers saying these are categorically a bad metric. Oh, and it can't be from Fox, WSJ, etc. because, you know, they are hyperconservative news agencies and they can't be trusted.
If you're far enough to the right, everything is to the left.
I'm conservative, but with Elena Kagan recusing herself from the Arizona case, it was widely expected that the conservative members of the court would back Arizona. Healthcare and Stolen Valor were up in the air, but generally you could expect Roberts to side with a 5-4 conservative majority on a case like this. I didn't expect my simple observation that the S.C. has gone to the left with its recent rulings to be debated.
Right to free speech, even as demonstrably stupid as Alvarez (and his ilk) are, is a specific Constitutional right, ya? Typical "conservative" judicial positions value specifically enumerated rights. Who is to say that is not a conservative ruling?
The AZ ruling had two conservatives (three if you feel Kennedy has shifted to the right) rule in favor if you go by justices.
I'm surprised about the way they upheld it (as a tax). That, IMO, is actually more important, as it sets precedent. It seems like an odd way to go, as well, since that is not how the administration argued it (extension of the commerce clause).
While I am glad the commerce clause wasn't stretched any more than it already is (which is quite a lot), I wonder how construing a penalty for not doing business as a tax will turn out.
To make the absurd argument, as always seems to happen, can the government now tax people for not buying an American car every 3 years?
Separate names with a comma.