The proper role and scope of government

[classicman]

@ Lamp - huh? I really know nothing about their medical preferences. Just curious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think the state or Feds should allow religious institutions to decide for us.
Then again, I really don't want the Gov't choosing either. (shrug)

[Lamplighter]

Did you watch Meet the Press this morning.

This is a planned campaign
- "Not Romney"
- "Not Obama"
- Paul is unelectable
- Gingrich is uncontrollable
- Suddenly Santorum has $

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.

Any First Amendment issue that restricts the Federal Government also restricts the states.

Anything that states are not prohibited from doing by the First Amendment also is not prohibited by the First Amendment to the Federal Government.

Other parts of the Constitution delineate differences in powers between the state and federal levels, but since the 14th Amendment, if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject.

If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment.

And I don't know what, other than the First Amendment, could be a Constitutional block based on religion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

... if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject.

If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment.

You are late to the party. I am not making those arguments for the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I did not bring them up and don't know if they specifically apply in that case. I am only talking about the BCP issue and what Obama wants the Catholic hospitals to do by the King's edict.

Further, states, Vermont in his case, can't tell the Feds or other states what to do or how to do it. Same goes for the whole issue of civil unions and what various states do about it. It is a red herring in this issue IMHO.

[Happy Monkey]

I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I mentioned Vermont as an example of a state that had already come up, but my point stands if you replace it with a generic state.

A state can't tell the Feds what to do, but if a state can do it, then so can the Feds, as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue.

Nor did I, that's the point.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nor did I, that's the point.

Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

Again you fail.

It is not about what the states regulate.

It is about what Obama wants to regulate to the states from the Federal pulpit.

[Ibby]

BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.

Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.

So you're saying that your opposition IS or ISNT about religious liberty?

Are you against it as a 10th amendment, states-rights issue, or a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.

Are you saying that they can't be both?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Are you saying that they can't be both?

YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.

The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.

Oh, and I do think Obamacare is a whole other set of issues and problems as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted it on the American people, on both constitutional grounds as well as numerous other areas where there are problems with it. But as Pelosi said, we had to pass it to see what was in it.... We will just have to see what the SCOTUS has to say about the numerous lawsuits that they are going to have to deal with over the next year.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.

WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?