Lobowolf

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question is a (related) 2-parter: whether the proposed legislation is desirable, and whether it's legal. I don't find the motivations relevant (except to the extent that an improper motivation renders some legislation illegal, e.g. the motive to racially discriminate). I'm subject to all sorts of proposed and enacted legislation that attempts to impose others' beliefs on me. The fact that a great deal of it doesn't come from the right or have a religious motivation doesn't make it any more palatable, and it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Please explain. Given the "scum of the earth" subthread, this Atilla the Hun metaphor is puzzling. I assume that it can't be a moral aspersion of any sort (although had anybody else made the reference, that's certainly what I'd assume), since that subthread seemed to indicate that we're all equal. On the other hand, if it doesn't mean that, then it seems to be a non-sequitur. Perhaps it's only mass-murderers who are immune to moral condemnation, though, and Republicans are another matter altogether. I only wish, as I read the comment, "to point out that the statement does infer a moral superiority. It then follows" (to some) "that one who believes himself morally superior must also believe (perhaps subconsciously) that he has the right to control the thinking and destinies of those who are inferior - for their own good, of course."

Ditto. Specifically, for me, 2♣ promising a 6-card suit, and 2♦ the typical 3-suiter short in diamonds, which at least brings the 1♦ opening up to promising a 2-card suit.

I think the "desirable" cart, with respect to this notion, is put far in front of the "remotely possible even in principle" horse.

How about, "I can give Time Warner Cable $75 a month" or "I can buy 2 packs of cigarettes a day" or "I can go to Olive Garden twice a month" vs. "I can pay $50 a month for health insurance."

Strongly disagree with this statement. I think it's logically a non-starter, as "general agreement" comes from the beliefs; beliefs don't come from agreement. Moreover, secular beliefs don't have to be tied into "the best interests of the many." Lots of people have strong secular beliefs that are libertarian, or supportive of private property or autonomy rights, even if those are to the detriment of the many.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform? So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in. The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs. What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws? Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though: Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

That's less clear...it might very well be held to be unconstitutional. But if there's a winning argument to scuttle it, I don't think it's going to come from the Commerce Clause. I think mandatory car insurance is a very poor analogy, for a number of reasons. For instance, if you can't afford car insurance, you have the option of not driving. But there's not a similar health insurance "opt out." Also, mandatory car insurance is liability insurance, for the protection of others; mandatory health insurance is loss insurance, for your own protection. Apart from that, you also have different impacts across economic lines, which means a different impact across racial lines; you have discrimination against healthy individuals who essentially would be forced to opt in to a system they may not need (or would be disproportionately charged to subsidize others' care)... there are certainly potential footholds for a legal challenged; they'd just have to be phrased in Constitutional terms. But the best footholds seem to be the impact on the individuals being forced to pay, not whether Congress is constitutionally empowered to address the issue, which is essentially the only traction a Commerce Clause argument gives you.

RGB LOL. My experience in the 90's when I participated that you had a lot of haughty Flight B players that mostly exchanged insults. Very little good bridge was discussed. And this compares how with the insults of some of the prominant posters on these forums? To paraphrase an early chess grandmaster: "The arrogance of genius is difficult to bear, but the arrogance of mediocrity is intolerable."

This is a bit of a misconstruction of the Commerce Clause issue(s), as it conflates two distinct questions. The first question is a more general one about whether the proposed legislation is under the umbrella of what Congress is authorized to do, as Congress (at least in principle) is supposed to only operate under its enumerated powers. This is the question that involves the Commerce Clause. The first sub-question is whether the transaction is "commercial," i.e. involving the exchange of goods and/or services, which in this case, it clearly is. The second question is whether the leglisation is intended to regulate that commerce, which, again, is a no-brainer. THe third question is whether the commerce is "interstate," which is really the only potentially tough call, but it's a question that is answered VERY liberally (i.e. if it might apply, it does apply). One of a few prongs for finding "interstate" commerce is whether it "substantially affects" interstate commerce. For instance, local farming (involving crops only sold in a given state) has found to be subject to the Commerce Clause, because it has an aggregate impact on the interstate market for the crops. Against this backdrop, I think it's not hard to conclude that the Commerce Clause could be dropped in here, and it would be much less of a stretch than has been used before to invoke the Commerce Clause. For instance, health insurance companies advertise and sell policies across state lines; people buy policies locally and those policies apply to their healthcare coverage in other states; etc. But that's only question 1; that doesn't mean it's "legal" necessarily. It only means that it's in the realm of things that Congress can legislate. The particulars of the way in which they address it may be unconstitutional on other grounds. THat's an entirely separate argument. It's like if a Federal law about a labor demonstration is held to violate your right to free speech. Regulating labor demonstrations might be O.K. under the Commerce Clause; that just means that it's the category of things that falls under one (of many) Congressional powers. That doesn't mean that the legislation they enacted passes constitutional muster. There are still issues of free speech, equal protection, due process, etc. So saying the Commerce Clause applies doesn't make it "legal." It just recognizes that we're in the ballpark of things that Congress is empowered to legislate about.

After the Raich case, it's hard to imagine the Court saying that the Commerce Clause doesn't apply to...well...ANYTHING the legislature wants it to apply to. As Clarence Thomas said in a Raich dissent, Congress's Article One powers have "no meaningful limits." But in this case, finding Congressional power to act is no stretch, anyway. That being said, the specific provisions (including the "mandatory insurance" requirement) could be found unconstitutional, but any Constitutional limitations won't be found in connection with asking whether Congress is Constitutionally authorized to take action.

Eugene -- Thanks for this review. I had forgotten about this book after reading a post (probably the one you mention) that had sparked my curiosity.

Time to rent Roadhouse again. "Yeah, I thought you'd be bigger."

The US has plenty of prison cells imho. No other country has anywhere near US's prison population (as a proportion of the entire population). So does that mean we have far more criminals per capita than other countries, or just fewer criminals per capita walking around amongst the rest of us?

Irrespective of the nature of the change or the motive for it, players should be aware that this is a major breach and fined if they do this. The TD must be called before any change is made to a traveller. Fined?!

Trick question...he wouldn't be "celebrating." He'd be wishing he were still in Afghanistan keeping us safe. If I had to choose, I'd go with: D. "Pacifism: It Worked Against Hitler"

Strongly, strongly agree.

Pretty much what they do, to the tune of several thousand people a year in the USA alone. Not that anyone is any better than a random guy who killed someone and had 114 prior convictions including 18 DUIs. Well, my point is instead of finger-pointing why not look to solutions? Where was the judicial system and drug court about 110 convictions ago? Incapacitation (via incarceration) is a solution. The judicial "system" was there (I assume; I'm not familiar with the specifics of Canadian criminal law, but I can't believe this guy couldn't have been locked up on the basis of his past convictions), but the person(s) administering that system failed the public, miserably. Hence the finger-pointing. Hey, if enough fingers get pointed, you never know...the next judge about to sentence an 18-time offender may decide that he doesn't want to be the next guy to get fingers pointed at him, and he might handle things differently.

You can't really plan the auction around which action is likely to induce declarer to go down when LHO has all of the remaining points. The foreseeable downside of doubling with this hand is that you're going to be dummy in some number of spades. Nothing wrong with defending with a good, balanced hand. Pretty clear pass IMO.

Pretty much what they do, to the tune of several thousand people a year in the USA alone. Not that anyone is any better than a random guy who killed someone and had 114 prior convictions including 18 DUIs.

...a life sentence, also, for the judge who presided over his EIGHTEENTH drunk driving conviction and let him return to polite society? http://news.aol.com/article/canadian-gets-...riving%2F663196

$1,000 is a pretty low threshold...I'd imagine that most of those 27% would be filing regardless of the medical expenses. If your bankruptcy application says you have $1,200 in medical debt and $20,000 in consumer debt, you're in the 27%.

I hope that those of you who are parents have internet filters to make sure that small children don't see that.