iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

Jon Konyar's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 20:50:54 in Politics

“The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to equalize the tariffs between the States, not the individual transactions.”

Dave F on Apr 4, 2012 at 21:33:08

“I'm quite certain it meant more than that extremely limited view; in any case, it DOES mean far more than that now, based on numerous precedents and quite settled case law.”
Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 20:47:58 in Politics

“The original intent of the Commerce Clause only applied to the tarriffs between the States, not to the actual business transactions. Sadly, this all changed after the Civil War. The south was succeeding from the Union due to the inequalities of the tariffs between the northern and southern states. This is were the interpretation in the SCOTUS changed its precedent.

The minimum wage started on a State level. The Federal government merely adopted it and tried to standardize it across the States. If it wasn't already implemented on the State level, it would have surely been challenged. As it is, the Federal level is merely symbolic as most States are higher.

Overtime, once again started locally, and with the unions, not government. The States once again already had it, so it wasn't challenged.

None of this was because of the Commerce Clause. It all started in the States and Federal government adopted guidelines.

Yes Blue Cross does sell in multiple states. However, what they are allowed to offer is only state specific depending on the State's laws.

A little suggestion: know the history and how things changed over time. I can only comment in short bursts in my busy time, sorry for the generalities. I could go into depth of the history and precedent, but honestly, it's not worth my time in this forum.

This is the first time the federal government says you must buy something. Not "You can't do that anymore".”
Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Meet the New Boss: Is the Court Making a Supreme Power Grab?

Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 15:43:27 in Politics

“First, the SCOTUS is not making the laws. That by itself makes your argument null and void. It is merely ruling whether or not the law is constitutional.

Second, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress unlimited power of regulation.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

So in other words, transactions between Nations, States and Tribes. Where do you see "Individuals" or "People" and "Private Companies"????

And as for reading the law...please tell me one person in Congress, or if the President, has read it yet, let alone before voting on it and signing it into law.”

Dave F on Apr 3, 2012 at 16:34:42

“Commerce among the several states means individuals too (unless you think commerce happens in a vacumm?).”

WestSeattle8 on Apr 3, 2012 at 16:18:39

“"It is merely ruling whether or not the law is constitutional."

Oh how I wish you were right! Sadly, you are far from it.”
huffingtonpost entry

Health Care Is Not Broccoli

Commented Mar 29, 2012 at 11:56:14 in Politics

“"made pursuant to the US Constitution"

And if a law is deemed unconstitutional by the people and the states?

There are strict limits on the Federal government spelled out in the Constitution. It specifically states what the Federal government is allowed to do. And what is not specifically stated, is delegated to the States or the People.

The problem is that the SCOTUS has become political, not constitutional. You can almost guarantee that certain judges will votes according to their personal views, not what is explicit in the constitution. So with that, the States and the People have to take back their power.

Take medical marijuana for example. Do you see the federal government suing the States to force them to reverse their laws? No, there is no jurisdiction. People incarcerated for drugs have been going through the federal court system, not the local in those states that have relaxed their laws.

How does the Federal government mandate most of their laws that are technically unconstitutional? They threaten to pull funding to the States. The States are merely taking bribes to enforce half of the federal laws. Some States actually take a stand, and mostly win.”
huffingtonpost entry

Health Care Is Not Broccoli

Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 14:35:09 in Politics

“I wish that was the case. However, auto insurance is not regulated at the federal level, therefore state laws are not counter to federal laws and can't be challenged at the Supreme Court as it is not something that is explicitly denied in the Constitution. And the powers not allowed to the federal government resides with the States or the People.

And since auto insurance requirements reside solely within the State, there is no inter-state commerce to be regulated by the federal government.

States can counter federal law, it's called nullification. This is a direct challenge of constitutionalility without relying on the court system. One prime example is Medical Marijuana. States are able to not enforce federal laws.

The Constitution was intended to be explicit in protecting the States and People's rights from the Federal government. Each State has its own constitution that defines its power vs the people.

And there were many reasons for the civil war (technically "War against Secessionism", since a civil war is a battle to control the entire land of the country, the south just wanted their own and to leave the north alone).”

Jody Dobis on Mar 28, 2012 at 22:10:12

“Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.”
huffingtonpost entry

Health Care Is Not Broccoli

Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 12:47:42 in Politics

“Taxes vs. being forced to buy something from an approved private company. Huge difference.

Also, auto insurance mandates are at the State level, not Federal. That is why Romneycare was able to be implimented without all of the legal battling.

And "we can require pretty much anything"???? Fine. I will require you to work as a bell hop for $4.10/hr. You must ride a bicycle to work, no cars, it's bad for the environment. You can't walk there, we need to keep the bicycle business going. You have to bow before a statue of your "Great Leader" whenever you pass it every block.....

I'm not waiting for them to come for me. I'm speaking up while other people are being taken.”

Jody Dobis on Mar 28, 2012 at 13:18:34

“The reason auto insurance is accepted is not because of it's a state law but because no one has either challenged it at the Supreme Court level and/or the Supreme Court has decided to not hear the case. State law can't counter federal law no mater how much state rights groups may wish otherwise. If a state law counters a federal law, it can be challenged by the federal government. Not being challenged doesn't mean it's constitutional. There was a reason for the Civil War.”
huffingtonpost entry

Health Care Is Not Broccoli

Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 12:38:08 in Politics

“I'm allergic to "health care". I can't have the pharmaceuticals being pushed by doctors (er... government mandates). Many children are allergic and are having adverse reactions (including death) to all of the mandatory vaccines being pushed by the government schools. We are being slowing poisened by the flouride (and who knows what else) the government puts in our drinking water. I can't eat half of what the USDA says is safe to eat (pink slime anyone?).......

So yes, people are allergic to "health care" when it is mandated by government and all of the lobbyists.”

avantegirl on Mar 28, 2012 at 14:54:27

“But I am assuming that you see a doctor when you are sick anyway. What a silly argument.”
huffingtonpost entry

Health Care Is Not Broccoli

Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 10:11:08 in Politics

“You totally missed the analogy. It's not about giving broccoi away for free. It's about being forced to buy it, whether or not you have the money.

And the States do not force doctors to give away their services for free, they just can't refuse service. The problem is when they send the bill out, the person is not able to pay it and eventually, it get written off as a loss.

The same goes for uninsured motorists. They are responsible to pay for the damages, and are able to be sued. The problem starts when the insured motorist's insurance decides to pay for the damages up front and then writes off the loss when the person can't pay.

The doctors and the insurance companies believe that it is not worth pursuing payment and roll the losses into other's premiums. It should be easier to seek restitution.”

Levonsky on Mar 28, 2012 at 14:31:09

“this mandate was originally a right wing idea, designed to make people not their employers responsible for their own healthcare. this objection flies in the face of what connies believe, but that shouldn't surprise anyone cause if you want to know what a connie believes it is whatever their authorities tell them.”

Jody Dobis on Mar 28, 2012 at 13:32:18

“If you don't expect a better analogy from a Supreme Court justice, you must have a very low opinion of the justices. Anyone can make an analogy. Most of us make up analogies on at least a weekly basis. But there are vast differences between analogies we accept from our fellow workers, bosses, neighbors and politicians and a supreme court justice. If that's the best Scalia could come up with, he needs to be recalled. My parents seldom questioned the opinion of doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Who were they to question someone with a better education? My generation has no qualms when it is obvious that the so called professional is exhibiting judgements and opinions that are below the standards we expect them to be.”

demisfine on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:41:55

“No, you missed the contrast.
The reason we have a Mandate for healthcare is to have a means to secure the funds to cover all expenses.
No grocery stores are REQUIRED to feed the Hungry customers.
Hospitals are REQUIRED to care for all patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
That is why broccoli is a bad analogy.”

Rimser on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:30:45

“You can grow your own broccoli. Or spinach. Or peas. You don't have to buy it. There's a do-it-yourself option. You can't grow your own doctor/hospital/health care.

People go to the emergency room but don't have the money to pay. Who pays? The rest of us who have health insurance. Who's rates go up? Ours. Why? Because people go to the emergency room but don't have the money to pay.

Same with auto insurance. People drive around without insurance, get in accidents, the loss gets "written off" but in reality the rates go up. For everyone.

And around and around and around we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.”

hp blogger Stephen Herrington on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:23:37

“You are exactly right. There is a process and there are even consequences to the credit scores of the non paying consumer. However the court and everyone else seem to have chosen to skip over all that complexity as being unnecessary to the argument. "Free" is intentional hyperbole.”
huffingtonpost entry

The Three Political Parties of America

Commented Mar 22, 2012 at 10:29:56 in Politics

“Ron Paul also wants to elimate income taxes, so there wouldn't be any special benefits one way or another.

Plus, if you read Paul's beliefs, he also believes that any government shouldn't have part in any aspect of marriage, but yes it still is a state issue. There is a difference between a "religious marriage" and the legal contract between two partners. But to me, that is terminology. It's the legal contract that should not be infringed upon.”
huffingtonpost entry

A Letter to Mitt Romney: What 'Getting Rid' of Planned Parenthood Means

Commented Mar 21, 2012 at 08:42:06 in Politics

“First, I said nothing about paps. They are a low risk screening.

As for mammograms, please read this - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/713242

Studies have shown, repeated exposure, especially to high-risk patients and at a young age, greatly increases the chances of breast cancer developing. But of course, I also didn't say not to do it. I was merely trying to promote more reading on the topic for a more informed decision.

I admit, I was wrong on the lobbying budget. I did not notice the figure also included the educational service (but it still does total 15%, not just directed towards the government). However, the 30%, (actually about 33%) is accurate for Federal funding. The remaining come from State governments.

My problem is that the Federal Government should not be funding any type of organizations. I would rather everyone's taxes be dramatically reduced and everyone would be able to decide for themselves what organizations they would wish to donate to. That would not only provide Planned Parenthood more private funding, but also provide more private funding to other organizations that could help in parallel with PP. There would end up being more options available should something happen.”
huffingtonpost entry

A Letter to Mitt Romney: What 'Getting Rid' of Planned Parenthood Means

Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 13:05:17 in Politics

“First, I wish you luck on your fight. But I do have a few questions/concerns.

Why are your daughters, at such a young age, getting screenings every few months? The screenings themselves have been found to promote cancer due to the radiation if done too often. That is a concern I would seriously read up about out of concern for your girls.

Next, how would Planned Parenthood be shut down? They only receive about 30% of their operating expenses from the Federal Government. Then they use about 15% of there expenses just lobbying the government for more. So effectively, they would only be losing 15% if they remove their lobbying expenses.

To me, all of this abortion funding is not a real issue. It's just a smoke screen to all of the real problems facing our country.”

Vikram K Mulligan on Mar 21, 2012 at 03:28:33

“Pap smears don't involve any radiation. They don't cause cancer. As for mammograms, the benefit to the patient (particularly one with a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer) vastly outweighs the risk. Of course, all of these are medical decisions that are best made by medical practitioners on a case-by-case basis, with informed patient consent. None of this enters into the realm of the political.

As for the claim that Planned Parenthood spends 15% of their budget lobbying, that's just false. Planned Parenthood spends 4% of its budget on fundraising, and the majority of that would not be directed at government. CharityWatch gives Planned Parenthood an A rating. It receives just under half (46%) of its funding from government, so yes, losing this could definitely hurt them.”
Paul Fights Washington Spending, Flies First Class

Paul Fights Washington Spending, Flies First Class

Commented Jan 17, 2012 at 21:25:57 in Politics

“I knew something didn't add up when I looked at that link. That was a list of all privately funded trips, not taxpayer funded trips.

But that leads to a different point. You can see who is being funded to do things, most likely by lobbyists. Looking at it in that perspective, Paul is near the bottom with 1 trip taken, by a staff member, to give a lecture to the HealthKeepers Alliance (not a big lobbying group).”
Is Ron Paul Absolutely Right, or Is He Absolutely Wrong About Terrorism?

Is Ron Paul Absolutely Right, or Is He Absolutely Wrong About Terrorism?

Commented Dec 7, 2011 at 19:26:25 in World

“I agree that there are many variables involved in a person resorting to terrorism. But let me ask this one question. What if we remove the one variable of US policy of occupying the land, all of the other variable still exist. What motivation would cause or motivate a potential terrorist to attack the US? (Hint: It's not because of our freedoms).

Paul may be over generalizing his statements about cause and motivation for terrorism, but I don't believe that he is overstating that it is directed at the US and not someone else because of US policy.”

PresidentRonPaul on Dec 7, 2011 at 20:35:27

“What causes them to be motivated? Believe me, the writers makes a silly argument. I suggest you go and listen and read what some of these terrorists say. Will everyone rebel if they are oppressed? No. BUT some will and it is the oppression that is the cause of such rebellion, not because they may be brave enough to stand up to tyrants.”

Jester2069 on Dec 7, 2011 at 19:51:50

“Agreed, and yes Paul has generalized his statements too much in the past. However, in the CBS Face the Nation attack by Bob Schieffer Paul (I think) spoke with great clarity on the subject: (conducted on Nov 20th)

"I think there's an *influence*. And that's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said. And that's also what the CIA has said and that's what a lot of researchers have said. And just remember immediately after 9/11 we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection. That doesn't do the whole full explanation. But our policies definitely had an influence.....so to deny this I think is very dangerous."

Oh, and Mr. Heroux: Good article.”
huffingtonpost entry

IA-2012 Caucus: 37% Cain, 27% Romney, 12% Paul, 8% Gingrich (University of Iowa 10/12-19)

Commented Oct 22, 2011 at 08:06:03 in Politics

“That's exactly what they kept saying about Reagan.”
huffingtonpost entry

IA-2012 Caucus: 37% Cain, 27% Romney, 12% Paul, 8% Gingrich (University of Iowa 10/12-19)

Commented Oct 22, 2011 at 08:05:16 in Politics

“That you for that compliment.

People
Already
Understanding
Lofty
Taxes
Are
Really
Dangerous”
huffingtonpost entry

IA-2012 Caucus: 37% Cain, 27% Romney, 12% Paul, 8% Gingrich (University of Iowa 10/12-19)

Commented Oct 21, 2011 at 16:20:53 in Politics

“Another incomplete result posting.

Another total blackout.

Ron Paul @ 12%!”

axt113 on Oct 21, 2011 at 17:26:19

“Unless Paul runs third party, he has no chance”
huffingtonpost entry

Republican Reasoning: Why 2008 Was the Year for Occupying and Protesting Wall Street

Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:10:13 in Politics

“Surprised that it did not happen in 2008? How quickly one forgets what one chose to ignore at the time when the tea party had its beginnings (before they were co-opted). They just chose to go after the government to prevent the bailouts in the first place so Wall Street wouldn't get even more power.”
Federal Workers Cheaper Than Private Contractors, Study Finds

Federal Workers Cheaper Than Private Contractors, Study Finds

Commented Sep 14, 2011 at 15:12:35 in Business

“I wonder how many of these contracts were to the politically connected on no-bid contracts. It's no wonder the two efficient contract areas are the least politically connected.”
Obama: 'Lone Wolf' Terror Attack More Likely Than Major Coordinated Effort

Obama: 'Lone Wolf' Terror Attack More Likely Than Major Coordinated Effort

Commented Aug 17, 2011 at 07:48:55 in Politics

“So the biggest terror threat is every politician and person in the media. That's all I hear from any of them.”
huffingtonpost entry

Jon Stewart: Media 'Pretending Ron Paul Doesn't Exist' In GOP Race (VIDEO)

Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 12:04:59 in Comedy

“I believe that he did break some new ground.

These were all registered Republicans from Iowa, not brought in from around the country.

He sold discounted tickets to the event, not just gave them away.

Whereas Bachman gave away her tickets, 6000 of them, but only got 4900 to still vote for her. Plus, she made you vote for her before she allowed you into the free entertainment part of her tent.

So, with Paul getting what is it, the 3rd or 4th highest total ever in the straw poll, should be quite an accomplishment.”

PunDyt on Aug 16, 2011 at 13:26:35

“New ground how? These are the kinds of people who flock to him to begin with. Doesn't matter where it's located.

But if you think Ron Paul has a chance to win in 2012, then you'll buy a swamp to build your next house on.”
huffingtonpost entry

Jon Stewart: Media 'Pretending Ron Paul Doesn't Exist' In GOP Race (VIDEO)

Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 11:58:21 in Comedy

“I just find it ironic how the media bemoans that corporations are influencing the elections.

Isn't the media owned by corporations? Doesn't the media influence the elections by using their money to promote, vilify, dismiss or out right ignore certain candidates?

This is just one major example. Thank you Jon for bringing it to light.”
S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

Commented Aug 7, 2011 at 21:29:27 in Politics

“So the S&P aren't specifying the Democrats either?

{...}In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”
S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

Commented Aug 7, 2011 at 21:21:02 in Politics

“No, I believe that most companies fail due to spending on failed strategies. Companies cut spending due to cash flow when needed, and spend on capital when they deem it feasible.

The Government is not under the same cash flow restraint. It's not their money, they can print more and borrow more.

Prosperity does not come from the Government. It comes from private enterprises developing new things. And they are able to develop when they have postive cash flow and are not inhibited by high taxes and unruly governmental regulations.”
S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

Commented Aug 7, 2011 at 21:15:26 in Politics

“Fine, let's raise taxes on the top 5% to a full 100%. That will solve the problem.

Oh wait. We would still be in a deficit of around $400B, even after the massive cuts they approved. And that's just this year. They want to spend 5% more next year, and the next, and the next....

The problem is that only 50% pay ANY taxes. Make the lower incomes pay as well and we'll see who they start voting for. They just keep voting for the Democrats to keep their handouts.”

whirlybird on Aug 13, 2011 at 10:18:43

“Don't waste your breath or our time. Fox says the exact same stuff, only better. If we wanted to hear it, we know where to go.”
S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War

Commented Aug 7, 2011 at 21:13:34 in Politics

“Wasn't it the Democratic controlled House and Senate that extended the Bush tax cuts before the 2010 elections? Wouldn't that have some bearing on their belief they won't be lifted?”
next
1 - 25