Was Obamacare constitutional or not? Your thoughts
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After much back and forth in the supreme court it was finally determined that it is unlawful for the federal government to order private citizens to purchase insurance that they don’t want, meaning it was finally determined to be unconstitutional.
What are your thoughts and experience with Obamacare? Do you think citizens should be forced to purchase healthcare or that they should be left to choose for themselves, as guaranteed under the "liberty" portion of the US Constitution? Or perhaps the government believes citizens are not able to choose for themselves and must be forced to act in their own best interest? Do you believe Obamacare was constitutional or not? Do you believe it was helpful to citizens or more harmful, forcing them to pay money that they didnt have, for something they didnt want?
Anyone with half a brain knew it was unconstitutional to pass a law forcing US residents and citizens to sign a contract for health care insurance, for every year of their life, as a function of citizenship.
When did I say Social Security was constitutional? Straw man much?
Social Security was NEVER constitutional, it just became accepted because it started during the New Deal era and people were all about ignoring/violating the Constitution back then. Sure, you can say because FICA is just a tax, you can forgive the tax, but the welfare payment, like all other welfare payments, are patently unconstitutional, and PRECISELY because you and me having wealth transferred to old and disabled people without our consent or agreement is as unconstitutional as anything gets.
But I never claimed anything about SS when I made the case that ObamaCare's mandate was unconstitutional. And oh btw, two things can be true at the same time. ObamaCare and SS are both unconstitutional, and were always thus, by simple definition.
I understand your perspective. Unfortunately, it is not shared by the current judiciary. And chill dude. We are just having a discussion.
I understand your perspective. Unfortunately, it is not shared by the current judiciary. And chill dude. We are just having a discussion.
1) I am plenty chill. Debate doesn't get me emotional.
2) The Constitution stopped being 100% relevant to the judiciary in the 18th Century. Since Marbury v Madison, there is just an oscillating graph of judicial adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Right now, I'd say it is around 80-85%, but just like Congress and the White House, they ignore/violate it when it suits them, just to a slightly lesser degree than the Legislative and Executive branches do. Kelo v New London, Grutter v Bollinger and Bennis v Michigan are all testament to the SCOTUS not G'ingAFF about the Constitution as it suits them.
3) All forms of using taxes to make personal payments to individuals, regardless of criteria or political rationalization, are absolutely unconstitutional. It is literally, using any and every definition of the word, a legal theft/extortion racket. ObamaCare's mandate, Socialist Security, Mediwelfare, at least half the DoD cronyist budget, etc. I don't single out ObamaCare because Obama or Democrats. Republicans are all about ignoring the Constitution when it suits their needs, same as their Team Blue cohorts, they just wrap their rationalizations in different rhetoric is all.
4) Plenty of folks (most, actually) would dismiss my above points as extreme, absolutist, unrealistic, etc. Yep, you betcha. But quoting Malcolm X, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
1) I am plenty chill. Debate doesn't get me emotional.
2) The Constitution stopped being 100% relevant to the judiciary in the 18th Century. Since Marbury v Madison, there is just an oscillating graph of judicial adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Right now, I'd say it is around 80-85%, but just like Congress and the White House, they ignore/violate it when it suits them, just to a slightly lesser degree than the Legislative and Executive branches do. Kelo v New London, Grutter v Bollinger and Bennis v Michigan are all testament to the SCOTUS not G'ingAFF about the Constitution as it suits them.
3) All forms of using taxes to make personal payments to individuals, regardless of criteria or political rationalization, are absolutely unconstitutional. It is literally, using any and every definition of the word, a legal theft/extortion racket. ObamaCare's mandate, Socialist Security, Mediwelfare, at least half the DoD cronyist budget, etc. I don't single out ObamaCare because Obama or Democrats. Republicans are all about ignoring the Constitution when it suits their needs, same as their Team Blue cohorts, they just wrap their rationalizations in different rhetoric is all.
4) Plenty of folks (most, actually) would dismiss my above points as extreme, absolutist, unrealistic, etc. Yep, you betcha. But quoting Malcolm X, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Korematsu v. U.S has to be the worst decision in modern times of the supreme court ignoring the bill of rights. American born citizen imprisoned simply based on the way he looked.
Dissenting opinion written by: Justice Jackson
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Robert Jackson contended: "Korematsu ... has been convicted of an act not commonly thought a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived." The nation's wartime security concerns, he contended, were not adequate to strip Korematsu and the other internees of their constitutionally protected civil rights.
Justice Jackson called the exclusion order “the legalization of racism” that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He compared the exclusion order to the “abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. He concluded that the exclusion order violated the Fourteenth Amendment by “fall[ing] into the ugly abyss of racism.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
