Ex-Cruz aide: Trump presidency 'is effectively over'

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It has long been the role of government to regulate the insurance industry.   Government has traditionally regulated both the financial integrity of the insurer (e.g., reserve requirements) and the kind of policies that can be sold in a state.     Before the ACA, for example, some states required community rating, and others did not.

You seem to object to such regulation at the federal level;  do you also object to regulation at the state level?   If you favor the rights of the states to regulate - which is my position - what do you think of the conservative proposal to allow insurers to sell their products across state lines, and thereby circumvent state law requirements for quality and content?   

The right of them to regulate is one thing, whether or not they should is another.

9 times out of 10 I find the free market is the best regulation device out there.

[Jazzhead]

Jazz, at this point you don't know enough for my answers to make sense to you.  Come back when you've read and understood our Constitution.

Coward. 

[Sanguine]

Coward.

You got that right!  I am terrified of the ignorance that people like you exhibit.  A republic cannot stand with proudly uninformed citizens.

[Cyber Liberty]

Coward.

Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken."   

[Sanguine]

Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken."   

    True dat. 

[Wingnut]

Just so you know, @Sanguine is a female of the species, and cannot be easily taunted into responding to your arguments by calling her "chicken."   

Damn.  She schooled him but good. 

But then it really wasn't a fair fight. She entered a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

[Jazzhead]

Damn.  She schooled him but good. 

But then it really wasn't a fair fight. She entered a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

What battle?   My statement stands, un-contradicted.   My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.   I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause.  But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?   

[Free Vulcan]

What battle?   My statement stands, un-contradicted.   My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.   I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause.  But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?

They wouldn't have to force anything, just offer the option. Let the market decide after that.

[RoosGirl]

What battle?   My statement stands, un-contradicted.   My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.   I understand that some conservatives discount the reach of the Commerce Clause.  But if that's so - how can you justify the Federal government upending the States' right to regulate insurance within their borders, by forcing the sale of policies across state lines?

How about if Fed Gov said they were excluding insurance from their ability to regulate interstate commerce?  Each state would then have the ability to regulate what got sold within the state; policy doesn't meet state requirements it doesn't get offered to people within the state.  There's no force involved.  But no, Congress won't do that because they want their greedy little fingers in everybody's pie.

[INVAR]

My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.

There's your problem right there.

Your view of the Constitution is exactly the same as the Marxist Left's view of the Constitution.

It must be made to be in accord with jurisprudence rather than jurisprudence being in accord with the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

My understanding of the Constitution is in accord with two centuries worth of jurisprudence.

That statement demonstrates why people can't talk to you about the Constitution.  You don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in the primacy of the courts over the Constitution.  The two world views are simply incompatible.

I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles.  It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.

[INVAR]

I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles.  It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.

It's what Leftists do. 

[Jazzhead]

How about if Fed Gov said they were excluding insurance from their ability to regulate interstate commerce?  Each state would then have the ability to regulate what got sold within the state; policy doesn't meet state requirements it doesn't get offered to people within the state.  There's no force involved.  But no, Congress won't do that because they want their greedy little fingers in everybody's pie.

That's traditionally been the case.   The states have long regulated both the content of insurance policies sold in their states,  and the financial solvency of insurers.   What frustrates me is that the same "conservatives" who deny the reach of the Constitution's Commerce Clause are the strongest backers of a Federal rule that would allow folks to purchase insurance policies across state lines.    Sanguine declares me "uninformed" and "ignorant",  but it's blatant hypocrisy to demand that federal rules trump the regulatory regimes that the states have long had in place.   

[Jazzhead]

That statement demonstrates why people can't talk to you about the Constitution.  You don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in the primacy of the courts over the Constitution.  The two world views are simply incompatible.

I don't blame people who know you to just tell you to stuff it rather than listen to you arguing in circles.  It's frustrating because you're not listening to them, only to yourself.

That's nonsense.   Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world?   Everyone for himself?   Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.   

   

[INVAR]

That's nonsense.   Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world?   Everyone for himself?   Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.   
 

Ah yes... your Priesthood of Justices who can miraculously find rights not enumerated within the parchment and whom disregard and strike rights enumerated in the parchment as null and void.

Your Priesthood is your constitution, not the actual document ratified as the Supreme Rule of Law in the land.  Your Courts are the Supreme Rule in the land.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's nonsense.   Who interprets the Constitution in your fantasy world?   Everyone for himself?   Judicial review has been our tradition since the Republic's earliest days.   

That looks a lot like a False Dichotomy there, Mr. Jazz.  "If the courts don't decide for us, nobody will and it's chaos."   I don't have a ready answer for you, I haven't thought about it (more important hings to do with my life), but I can observe the current method of Tyrants in Robes needs improvement.  There is too much deference to Judges, and until we get better ones who respect the document to which they say they swear fealty, it's not going to get better.

Which seems "A-OK" to one who likes those disrespectful decisions.  If a Judge decided tomorrow that Philly can't regulate waltzing yahoos with guns, for example, you might change your mind about how wonderful judges are.  Pennsylvania state government is, fortunately, coming around about this, as are most states.

[Cyber Liberty]

Ah yes... your Priesthood of Justices who can miraculously find rights not enumerated within the parchment and whom disregard and strike rights enumerated in the parchment as null and void.

Your Priesthood is your constitution, not the actual document ratified as the Supreme Rule of Law in the land.  Your Courts are the Supreme Rule in the land.

That's the nub of it right there, @INVAR.  Our friend doesn't believe in the Constitution, he believes in the Courts and calls it the same thing.

[TomSea]

Cruz is the one who's washed up along with this guy, uh, Rick Tyler, that's it. The Cruz-Beck smear machine rolls on but it's pretty well over. We'll see per 2020.