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.
That or Gonzales, or perhaps both are possibilities of what might be controlling precedent. There are also a lot of other cases they can pull on as well. You really don't know.
Oh sure, who knows - I can think of many ways the federal government can regulate health care under the auspices of the commerce clause. Now, forcing people to buy a product, I have to admit, I am not familiar with any case law on the subject (or any enumerated power)... Is forcing people to purchase a product/service a form of regulation under the commerce clause?
Not true. The military has a constitutional provision inside it, the health care law does not. By the way, just how was the military paid for before income tax came along?
You must really hate the ninth amendment, as well as the necessary and proper clause in the US Constitution. Besides, there's no reason for the federal government to worry about the trillion dollars it spends on health care, is there? I mean, there can't be, for "fiscal conservatives".
Quote:
Activist judges MAKE laws from the bench, like legislating gay marriage to be legal, or Roe v. Wade.
Interesting to come from a guy who advertises self as a libertarian. OTOH, this guy was no sham...
“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
-Barry Goldwater
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
It can force you to pay taxes under the tax and spend clause, that clause does not give them the power to force you to buy a product.
Good point. But when the federal law allows states to come up with their own plan, using such word as "forcing" is the lifeline of a partisan hack. The good thing, if the law is overturned, is that THAT will be the formula towards some form of single payer system. It is inevitable.
Quote:
I wonder why they did not make a tax that was the same as your health insurance would cost, but you would receive a rebate in that amount should you purchase health insurance... that would have avoided this issue entirely.
They didn't, because the idea came from republican approach from the 1990s and also supported by republican governor (now a leading candidate for the republican party)... Mitt Romney.
Obama's personal approach would have been tax, and at least have public option if not downright single payer. Trust me, Obama knows very well that regardless of where the law goes, it has paved the way for something Americans won't accept until they get kicked really hard in the rear... something that can't be avoided (and only delayed for political reasons, right now).
It can force you to pay taxes under the tax and spend clause, that clause does not give them the power to force you to buy a product.
I wonder why they did not make a tax that was the same as your health insurance would cost, but you would receive a rebate in that amount should you purchase health insurance... that would have avoided this issue entirely.
Remember after this mess was passed and the "mandate" was being questioned they tried to double talk it and say oh well that is basically a tax so we can do it. The old "pass it and then we'll find out what is in it" has come back to bite em in the butt. Or as Obammers minister says his chickens are coming home to roost!!
Conversely, isn't it funny how the right is now depending upon those so-called "activist judges" they persistently wail about to accomplish what they couldn't do through Congress?
Activist judges used to = BAD. Now, they = GOOD.
It depends how you look at it Constitutionally, to see which side is activist.
The ones that uphold the Constitution, or the ones that say citizens are not free, or the one that says the Constitution needs to be totally redone... Oh wait that is the same person.
Oh sure, who knows - I can think of many ways the federal government can regulate health care under the auspices of the commerce clause. Now, forcing people to buy a product, I have to admit, I am not familiar with any case law on the subject (or any enumerated power)... Is forcing people to purchase a product/service a form of regulation under the commerce clause?
I think that is part of the issue, but I also think there is a very clear test about commerce that is laid out in Lopez, and fleshed out in Morrison, and Gonzales for what activity constitutes "commerce" and in that regard this relative to other issues is not all that much of a stretch I don't think.
Let him run for Governor of Illinois next election and he can have Obamacare in his state. He is going back to Chicago isn't he?
Have you seen the crime rate? He and his ilk will go to another state and infect it with their liberalism, and when it too becomes unsafe, they will move again...
It depends how you look at it Constitutionally, to see which side is activist.
Which constitution? One you believe has been in effect since 1776? One that condones the idea "money is speech"?
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.
