Commence Republican Spin

Several hours now since the Supreme Court handed down its decision upholding the Constitutionality of the nation's healthcare reform law.

I've noted that Republican talking points are concise and consistent:

• This is a tax and represents a HUGE tax hike on Americans - they're saying this because the law was held Constitutional by the Court as they determined that Congress could tax Americans if they did not have health insurance....and thus compelling them to buy insurance. So, taxation is the mechanism that makes the law hold. The law has not changed, but this "tax" interpretation is the one now from the right and you will be hearing A LOT about it over the next few months. 
• The act will actually raise healthcare costs and limit coverage to Americans. This is the typical Republican playbook. Take what your opponent is running on or claims that they make and reverse them. Convince Americans that their "strength" is their weakness. Facts need not be considered. 
• It represents a program we simply cannot afford. So says the party that ran our economy into the ground and manufactured our massive debt when they ran all branches of the government from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. Sorry. Try again. You have zero credibility on this.
• We will move to repeal it legislatively. Now this is a true statement. They will. I suspect we'll see the first try in a few days and then more tries into the election season. And then certainly if the Rs control any amount of Congress or the Presidency come January 2013, they'll try again.

And in the case of Mitt Romney...of course he is saying all these things too...but doing so after supporting and passing a virtual carbon copy of the national law in his state while he was governor. Since that is public knowledge, you can see that Mitt is literally counting on Americans to be short-term-memory morons and just go with whatever he is saying today.

SCOUSA Upholds Healtchare Reform Law

I have to say, I am SURPRISED that the profoundly conservative majority of the Supreme Court has voted to uphold the nation's healthcare reform law. This is not something that I thought would happen.

What I am getting out of the first news reports I am hearing is that the Court decided that the entire law is Constitutional. More specifically, the majority opinion says that the law is upholdable under a taxation provision of the US Constitution, but that it was not under the commerce clause as orignally argued by the White Hosue and reform supporters. That's a bit of a twist.

So, while upholding the law under tax provisions, the Court also said that the federal government cannot require individuals to buy something as part of regulating commerce nationally...like health insurance.

I note that this also would mean going forward that laws requiring people to buy other things as part of regulating commerce would not pass muster as Constitutional...like private pension funds as part of a conservative overall of Socail Security. That's something conservatives have long talked about doing, but I seriouly doubt Republicans would try to enforce a individual mandate requiring purchase of private investment services as part of an overhaul of Social Security by relying on a TAX provision to do it. Just not their thing, and despite a keen ability to do a 180 on issues at a drop of hat...that might be a bit much for even them. So, the ruling today might be a double whammy against the conservative agenda.

One person who should be a bit perplexed by the decision today is Mitt Romney. After all, he championed and successuflly passed a very, very similar law in Massachesetts when he was governor. So, he was correct on what was best for Americans by supporting this reform back in the day, right? But he also has consistenly railed against the national healthcare reform law since he began running for President. Odd to run against the exact thing you championed previously. But that's Mitt for you.

But, all that being said, with its decision today the Supreme Court has upheld that:

• Expands coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured
• Health insurers cannot turn you down for coverage based on pre-existing conditions
• Insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition

Do I think that a little thing like a ruling by the Supreme Court will stop Republicans and conservatives from trying to get rid of this law - in some way, some how? Hell no. If anything, this will compell them to double down on new and creative was to either effectively neuter the law or - if they gain majority power and the Presidency - just straight out repeal the law legislatively. You watch...that's what Mitt will run on now.

The Census - It's In the Constitution

In addition to Thursday being April Fools Day, it's also Census Day in which U.S. citizens are urged to fill out and send in their Census form.

I saw an interesting article about how some on the political right are questioning if the Census is constitutional. The article points out the irony of how by not sending in their Census replies, the very people who currently want change in the government will be minimizing their representation in the government since virtually all forms of legislative districting are proportioned based on population. The article also points out how it's pretty funny that the Census is even being debated as it's so clear that its clear the Federal government is authorized to do it.

I guess this goes to show you the level of paranoia and willful ignorance of a certain element of our citizenry.

For any doubters out there...or as ammo to use when discussing the Census this evening with your "crazy right wing uncle," straight out of Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution...

The actual enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Other than some interesting 1700s use of capitalization, that's pretty clear...and it's in the Constitution.

Oh, and that section about "in such manner as they shall by law direct?" The relevant law today is Title 13 of the US Code, and it can be seen HERE

"Flippin' the Bird" is Protected Speech

And it should be!

Maybe you just assumed that the hand signal for "f--- off" is protected speech under the law. After all, what's more American than for no other reason than you want to...looking someone in the eye, raising your hand and flipping them the middle finger? How could that not be "free speech?"

Well, today it appears we've received some clarification on the issue as a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania found in favor of a guy who gave the bird to a motorist and a cop. The judge said that the gesture was a non-verbal expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Click here for a report on this from ace legal writer and blogger, Robert Ambrogi.

In the end, I'm certainly not in favor of giving the finger to people...but by God, when the time is right and the need is there, I'm glad to know that it's my right protected by the Constitution.