Chip Bok for July 03, 2015

You are being too literal. I am sure handwritten “typos” abounded back then. Nuances of meaning also change as the culture evolves over time.

That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head…

There’s a whole academic field called textual criticism which deals with errors of various sorts. Every text you read from the ancient world (and lots from the more modern world) has been worked over by textual critics. Ancient manuscripts abound in errors of various sorts, and these have to be corrected. Sometimes we are pretty sure about the corrections, but there are also hard choices. I don’t do textual criticism myself, but when I was in graduate school I had to take a course in textual criticism so I would know where the texts I work on came from and why they are the way they are. It’s actually quite a fascinating field, and I have a lot of respect for textual editors.

It’s UNITED States, Bok. Not individual and several states.

no wmconelly Robert went with what the supporters of aca wish now what they had written just like the not a tax is a tax

Conservatives always like to talk about channeling the founding fathers and knowing the intent of what they wrote and sticking to that intent. Here the people that wrote the ACA are still alive and so you do not have to channel anything you can ask their intent. Conservatives have used in the past that Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes. From Conservapedia:The elephant-in-mousehole doctrine holds that “Congress … does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). This doctrine is an exception to the textualism approach to constitutional interpretation.

American Trucking’s elephant-in-mousehole doctrine was first implied by FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), where the Court held that nicotine was not a “drug” within the meaning of the statute (the FDCA) and thus could not be regulated by the FDA. Although a pure textualism approach could find that nicotine fit within the FDCA’s technical definition of a “drug”, the Court held that “we are confident that Congress could not have intended to delegate a decision of such economic and political significance to an agency in so cryptic a fashion.” Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 160.The Court also applied the elephant-in-mousehole doctrine in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). It held that the Attorney General lacks authority under the physician-registration provision of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide. The Court found implausible “[t]he idea that Congress gave the Attorney General such broad and unusual authority through an implicit delegation in the CSA’s registration provision.” Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 267 (citing American Trucking and Brown & Williamson).Courts of Appeals have been applying the elephant-in-mousehole doctrine. Compare Am. Bar Ass’n v. F.T.C., 368 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 430 F.3d 457 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding elephant-in-mousehole where Federal Trade Commission claimed authority under financial consumer privacy statute to regulate attorneys) with Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Gates, 486 F.3d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding no elephant-in-mousehole where the Department of Defense claimed authority under National Defense Authorization Act to curtail collective bargaining with civilian employees) (2008); NISH v. Rumsfeld, 348 F.3d 1263, 1269 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We simply do not see the elephant in the mousehole” where the military claimed statutory authority to give blind vendors priority in awarding mess hall contracts). http://www.conservapedia.com/Elephant-in-mousehole_doctrineLastly, conservatives claim to hate the Supreme Court making laws when they should be made in Congress. That the Supreme Court should only be allowed to determine the constitutionality of a law or act of government. Yet in this case they are asking the SCOTUS to not the constitutionality of the ACA, but to interpret the ACA. So they are for binding SCOTUS when it suits them or giving it more powers than they advocate when it suits them.

Has anyone asked why the American Enterprise Institute and theCompetitive Enterprise Institute pushed the frivolous King v. Burwell case all the way to the Supreme Court? Just what did they hope to accomplish?

Courts look at and debate the specifics, language, and INTENT OF LAWS, at all levels, all the time, from town ordinances to county, state, and federal. That’s why so much research is done before decisions are reached, well, usually.

Dictionary definition of STATE:a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government..IOW, the Entire USA is also a State..

Hey, it was the rightwingers who claimed to have read the entire ACA word-for-word. They’re also the ones who mocked the Democrats for saying that what it was going to do for people was more important than obsessing and nitpicking over every little passage..And, by the way, if you READ the decision, you’ll see that, what the Court decided — by a six to three margin — is that the error in that one passage was obvious and the intent was clear..But, hey, go ahead and blow the next election by screwing several million people. Maybe nominate Trump so you won’t get any Hispanic votes either. Once the election is over, you’ll see how the Republicans have improved things for middle-class Americans simply by self-destructing over stupid things any five-year-old could have avoided.

It amazes me how ignorant big government promoters are about the constitutional rights retained by states… but then I think back to school and realize with the state of modern education in history and civics, it’s no wonder.

BTW: folks should be aware many “typos” also occurred back in the days of that elaborate cursive script.