BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health insurance mandates give too much power to fed over states

David B. Rivkin. The Federalist Society Online Debate Series: Individual Health Care Insurance Mandate Debate. November 3, 2009 November 6th, 2009: "the vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general police powers, is the key part of our constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, these structural limitations on the ability of the federal government to exercise authority were the primary ways of ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. [...] because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause [ruling in favor of individual mandates] would rob States of any remaining authority."
Individual mandates will be met by individual lawsuits

Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith. "Constitutional implications of an 'individual mandate'" Federalist Society: "If an individual mandate is passed, it seems likely that courts will be faced with claims from individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance, but who will protest that they should be free to determine whether their earnings are best used for other purposes. Other people may protest they cannot afford to purchase coverage at a price that has been increased by federally-mandated benefits that they neither want nor would choose on their own."
Social security is not analogous to insurance mandates

Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith. "Constitutional implications of an 'individual mandate'" Federalist Society: "It is worth noting that the architects of the Social Security Act harbored grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States.6 However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Social Security and Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits -- although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes -- none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out” other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.7"
Commerce clause gives power to mandate health insurance

Mark Hall. "Is it unconstitutional to mandate health insurance?" August 25th, 2009: "Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones."
People can choose to go without insurance; they'll just be fined

Jack M. Balkin. "The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance." New England Journal of Medicine. January 13th, 2010: "it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax” — a tax on transactions or events — or a “penalty tax” — a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. [...] Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment."
Insurance mandates will not set catastrophic precedent

Erwin Chemerinsky. The Federalist Society Online Debate Series: Individual Health Care Insurance Mandate Debate. November 3, 2009 November 6th, 2009: "Mr. Rivkin says that if Congress can do this, there will be no limit to Congress's power. He says that this is the commerce clause "on steroids" and that Congress will be able to regulate everything, even who people have over to their homes for dinner. He says that the system of dual federalism will be at an end. Such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labor. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: "[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed." For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labor and none of these dire predictions came true. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism."
Enforcing mandates may intrude on Constitutional rights

Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith. "Constitutional implications of an 'individual mandate'" Federalist Society: "The mechanisms of enforcement of an individual mandate would invite scrutiny as well. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., who was recently nominated by President Obama become Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, '[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.' [...] Currently, individuals without auto insurance are identified during traffic stops by police or when applying for or renewing a driver’s license. Would such “effort, ingenuity, and intrusiveness” require hospitals and doctors to report to the federal government patients without health insurance presenting to their emergency rooms or offices? Or might it inspire enforcement mechanisms employed in child support cases such as the denial of certain government controlled licenses or withholding of tax refunds. As previously noted, the Senate HELP Committee draft bill suggests that insurance companies and employers would be required to file annually with the Internal Revenue Service the equivalent of a Form “W-4” or '1099' and report to the IRS all individuals with health insurance."
Health insurance mandates are legal abroad

Ezra Klein. "The importance of the individual mandate." Washington Post. December 16, 2009: "Pick your favorite system. Socialized medicine in Britain. Single-payer in Canada. Multi-payer with a government floor in France. Private plans with heavy public regulation in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere. None of these plans are "voluntary." In some, there's an individual mandate forcing you to pay premiums to insurance companies. In some, there's a system of taxation forcing you to pay premiums to the government. In all of them, at least so far as I know, participation is required except in very limited and uncommon circumstances. And there's a reason for that: No universal system can work without it."
"Mandates" do not require all citizens to buy insurance

Jack Balkin. "The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance." New England Journal of Medicine. January 13th, 2010: "The term “individual mandate” is misleading for two reasons. First, the law would not actually require all individuals to purchase insurance. The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan."
Exploiting cheap labor is no justification for allowing illegals

In a letter to Sen. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ (rooted from the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."[6]
Costs of deportation made up for by savings to taxpayers

Edwin S. Rubenstein, MA, President of Edwin S. Rubenstein (ESR) Research Economic Consultants, in a Jan. 26, 2006 VDare.com article entitled "No-one’s Suggesting Mass Deportation—But It Would Pay For Itself,": "even if $206 billion was a reasonable cost estimate, mass deportation would be well worth it. Just consider the economic burden illegal aliens impose on the rest of us... Total fiscal benefits of deportation are thus estimated at $51 billion per year... At this rate, mass deportation would pay for itself in about four years. Plus, of course, we’d get America back."[7]
Mass deportation from US would be very expensive

A Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation’s population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country).” In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.
Deportation is not feasible; legalization is only option

Michael R. Bloomberg, MBA, 108th Mayor of the City of New York, in a July 5, 2006: "We need to get real about the people who are now living in this country illegally – in many cases raising families and paying taxes. The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people – about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania – is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it – and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history – the social and economic consequences would be devastating. Let me ask you: Would we really want to spend billions of dollars on a round-up and deportation program that would split families in two – only to have these very same people and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better than that – and smarter than that. There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together."[4]
Illegal immigrants significantly contribute to US economy

"The costs of mass deportation." Center for American Progress. March 2010: "legalization of undocumented immigrants and more flexible immigration channels would significantly expand the economy—by a cumulative $1.5 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years—through increased consumer spending, higher tax receipts, and other related factors. A deportation approach, by contrast, would have the cumulative effect of draining $2.5 trillion over 10 years from the U.S. economy. That is a $4 trillion swing in GDP depending on which policy approach we adopt."
Mass deportation has been successful in the past

"It's time to deport illegals." Napa Valley Register Letter to the Editor. March 17th, 2010: "Bring back President Hoover, who in the Great Depression ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work! Bring back President Truman, who deported more than two million illegals after World War II to create jobs for returning veterans. Bring back President Eisenhower, who deported 13 million Mexican nationals. It was done so veterans would have a better chance at jobs. If they could deport the illegals back then, they could sure do it today."
Deporting illegals would be economically damaging

"The GOP's Immigration Fumble." The Wall Street Journal. Aug. 4, 2002: "Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families. It also would disrupt businesses that depend on foreign labor for jobs that Americans don't want... The U.S. needs policies in place that recognize the economic realities that come with a long, porous border between an immensely rich country and a poor one. We need programs that will legalize the status of foreigners who are here already and contributing to our economy."[8]
Deporting illegal immigrants in smaller numbers is feasible

Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006: "no one is seriously talking about mass deportation, for anyone with a modicum of common sense knows we could not round up all the illegal aliens at once. [...] However, we can round them up in smaller numbers, and over time, the cumulative effect of round-ups will have an undeniably deterrent effect."
No past administration deported close to 13 million illegals

"Hoover, Truman, and Ike." FactCheck.org. July 9th, 2010: "Q: Did Eisenhower deport 13 million illegal immigrants? Did Hoover and Truman use mass deportations to open jobs for U.S. citizens? A: No. Nothing close to 13 million persons were deported during any administration."
Illegal aliens can be compelled to leave on their own

Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006: "Since illegal aliens came here on their own, they should be made to leave here on their own. Call this self-repatriation. In effect, it is deporting them without having to formally deport them en masse. And it would be infinitely cheaper for the American taxpayers."
Illegal aliens have no moral right to remain in the US

Ian de Silva. "How to Deport 10 Million Illegal Aliens." Human Events. May 18th, 2006: "As a legal immigrant and naturalized American who waited years for a green card, I mince no words when I say I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens. They have no right to be here, and their claim that their marches are the latest struggle in civil rights is poppycock. At this rate, a burglar who invades your house will have an equal claim of ownership to your house merely because he is inside the house."
Angering hispanics should not stop enforcing law, deporting illegals.

David Sheets. "Start deporting illegal immigrants." DesMoinesRegister. July 1, 2010: "The U.S.-Mexican border is allowed to be porous because of misguided attitudes that border security will anger Hispanics in the United States and the Mexican government. Failing to act, regardless of who is angered by enforcing the law, is an abdication of government responsibility to regulate the flow of people into and out of this nation's borders."
Illegals should be deported, not given amnesty

Jim Gilchrist, MBA, CPA, Founder and President of The Minuteman Project, in a May 31, 2007 Global Politician interview titled "Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project on Immigration, Terror, Elections": "I’m pro-deportation or if you want to use a nicer word, pro-repatriation. You cannot have a defeatist attitude towards the problem and have a solution. The repatriation of illegals must begin with a recognition of the problem and a plan. We may be called names, but the names our grandchildren will call us will be worse when they have to live in a destroyed country. There must be a multi-faceted approach, including arresting illegals and also cutting off social welfare programs to them."[9]
World is already geoengineering Earth on mass scale

Brandon Keim. "6 Ways We’re Already Geoengineering Earth." Wired. March 23, 2010: "Scientists and policymakers are meeting this week to discuss whether geoengineering to fight climate change can be safe in the future, but make no mistake about it: We’re already geoengineering Earth on a massive scale. From diverting a third of Earth’s available fresh water to planting and grazing two-fifths of its land surface, humankind has fiddled with the knobs of the Holocene, that 10,000-year period of climate stability that birthed civilization." And, if we are already geoengineering the Earth in negative ways, why not do it in ways to counteract the harm we've already inflicted?
Geoengineering only masks problem of CO2 emissions

Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "neither sulfur-aerosol injection nor an armada of cloud whiteners nor an array of space-shades would do much to reduce carbon-dioxide levels. As long as carbon emissions remain constant, the atmosphere will fill with more and more greenhouse gases. Blocking the sun does nothing to stop the buildup. It is not even like fighting obesity with liposuction: it’s like fighting obesity with a corset, and a diet of lard and doughnuts. Should the corset ever come off, the flab would burst out as if the corset had never been there at all. For this reason, nearly every climate scientist who spoke with me unhesitatingly advocated cutting carbon emissions over geo-engineering."
Many geoengineering approaches are harmless like painting roofs.

One of the simplest ways to combat Climate Change is by painting houses white. As we all know, the color white reflects the sun, sending more solar radiation back into space instead of allowing it to remain in the Earth's atmosphere where it can heat the climate. There are no negative effects to the climate by painting a roof a different color. If employed in a large enough area, it could reflect enough solar rays to cool the surrounding area a few degrees. This, and many other "geoengineering" approaches like reforestation, are innocuous and yet are often bound up in the irrational fears that often surround the field of geoengineering as a whole.
Geoengineering comes from human hubris; let mother nature work

Indian environmentalist, scientist, philosopher and eco-feminist, Vandana Shiva: "it is the idea of being able to engineer our lives on this very fragile and complex and interrelated and interconnected planet that’s created the mess we are in. It’s an engineering paradigm that created the fossil fuel age, that gave us climate change. And Einstein warned us and said you can’t solve problems with the same mindset that created them. Geoengineering is trying to solve the problems with the same old mindset of controlling nature. And the phrase that was used, of cheating—let’s cheat—you can’t cheat nature. That’s something people should recognize by now. There is no cheating possible. Eventually, the laws of Gaia determine the final outcome."[4]
Geogengineering will not curb sea level rise

Richard Lovett. "Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise." Nature News. August 23rd, 2010: "Unless they involve extreme measures, geoengineering approaches to offset the effects of human-driven climate changes won't do much to combat rising sea levels, an international team of scientists reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. That is because sea levels respond slowly to changes in Earth's temperature, says John Moore, a palaeoclimatologist at Beijing Normal University and lead author of the study."
Geoengineering may result in unexpected consequences

Alan Robock. "Has the time come for geoengineering?" The Bulletin. August 14th, 2008: "Scientists cannot possibly account for all of the complex climate interactions or predict all of the impacts of geoengineering. Climate models are improving, but scientists are discovering that climate is changing more rapidly than they predicted, for example, the surprising and unprecedented extent to which Arctic sea ice melted during the summer of 2007. Scientists may never have enough confidence that their theories will predict how well geoengineering systems can work. With so much at stake, there is reason to worry about what we don’t know."
Geoengineering can effectively fight climate change

In the New York Times, Ken Caldeira, of the Global Ecology Department at Stanford writes: "If we could pour a five-gallon bucket's worth of sulfate particles per second into the stratosphere, it might be enough to keep the earth from warming for 50 years. Tossing twice as much up there could protect us into the next century." Other experts say that blocking 2% of the sun's rays from hitting the earth could stop global warming.
Geoengineering technologies may be used for military purposes

Alan Robock. "Has the time come for geoengineering?" The Bulletin. August 14th, 2008: "16. Military use of the technology. The United States has a long history of trying to modify weather for military purposes, including inducing rain during the Vietnam War to swamp North Vietnamese supply lines and disrupt antiwar protests by Buddhist monks.19 Eighty-five countries, including the United States, have signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), but could techniques developed to control global climate forever be limited to peaceful uses?"
Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering

Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."
Starting then stopping geoengineering would accelerate warming

Alan Robock. "Has the time come for geoengineering?" The Bulletin. August 14th, 2008: "10. Rapid warming if deployment stops. A technological, societal, or political crisis could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in mid- deployment. Such an abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming."