Listening to the philosophical argument that was advanced by the Republican candidate in the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, I couldn’t help but notice a certain symmetry.

What’s the practical difference between the arguments Rand Paul put forth as to why the nation’s civil rights acts in the 1960s, the Americans with Disability Act, and the Fair Housing Act all should have avoided regulating private economic behavior and Mike DeWine’s , the Tea Party version, “constitutional” arguments against the health care reform bill?

There is none.

And yet, the Ohio media has reported, without question, DeWine and Republican legislative leaders’s “legal” criticisms about the health care bill without pointing out it is as radical and against well-established law as Rand Paul’s rantings.

Huh.

 
  • Tudorman

    Your “well-established law” defense holds no water. Just because a law has been on the books for a long time does not make it immune to attack or repeal. If that's your argument, there's certainly oodles of laws that have been or were on the books for a very long time that should still be there, but I'm sure you'd agree they should have been thrown into the fires of obscurity. A light-hearted example would be the prohibition against the brewing of beer at home. This law was firmly established during Prohibition, and was enforced for sixty-years, including forty-five years after the repeal of the Eighteen Amendment. Should Jimmy Carter have refused to sign the legislation that legalized home brewing because it would have overturned “well-established law”?

    Laws are changed all the time, many deservedly so, even if they've been on the books longer than anyone has been alive. If you're going to defend a law or custom, do it based on it's merits. You sound like a conservative defending his positions because, well, “that's the way we've always done it”.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!