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's done by states not the federal government. The states have the authority, unless their constitutions say otherwise, to do things like create health insurance programs or require drivers have insurance. The federal government is limited in its authority to what the Founders considered was necessary and unable to be accomplished by any one state alone. Such as national defense, a postal system across the Union, keeping trade flowing between states (interstate commerce was restricted under the articles because of one state putting tariffs on another's goods, blocking them, etc.).
A view, incorrect, but a view. Most of what the federal government does was unforeseen by the founders.
We accomodate those people in the requirement for auto insurance. All you have to do is show that you are financially able and willing to fund a catastrophic illness or accident and you'll be allowed to self-insure.
I have heard nothing stating that this is the case with health care reform. Just the opposite you will be fined if you do not take some coverage, that is just wrong.
I have heard nothing stating that this is the case with health care reform. Just the opposite you will be fined if you do not take some coverage, that is just wrong.
No it's not and the details always have to be worked out by the acency administering the law.
I respect all of your opinions. However, I would like to say that there is a very specific reason that the 10th Ammendment exists. It was, in my humble reading, a protection that guarantees the freedoms of the States and the People from the abuse of Federal power. Every statement in the Constitution that even mentions the Federal branch is written specifically to restrict its power not to increase it.
I question the Constitutionality of using "general welfare" to enact socialist policy.
general: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
welfare: the state of doing well
I have looked and can find no ruling by the Supreme Court which finds that any redistribution scheme enacted by the Federal Government is Constitutionally allowed. I did find two that skirted the issue. In the Butler case, the Court ruled against an agricultural spending program citing that such a power was not mentioned in the Constitution. In the Dole case, the Court ruled that the spending by the Federal Government was Constitutional. But, there is no case which defines "general welfare" one way or the either. It seems the Court is not really looking forward to such a challenge. By looking at the definition of such words, I see that our current programs could easily be seen as designed to:
Help some, not all. (Actually, hurt most for the benefit of the few, which is the antithesis of "general welfare".)
Tax inequally to fund such programs, therefore specifically do harm to welfare. (which also fails to obey the equal taxation clause)
I would just like to see a case that actually challenges not just the spending on such socialist policies but the very notion that they promote the "general welfare" on behalf of those who suffer from such programs. I think such a case could finally end the majority of bickering once and for all. Again, I think that if some states wished to leave the Union after such a decision they should be able to freely do so without threat of harm.
If the court were to rule for an all-encompassing definition of "general welfare" it should shock any sane person. If that was its intention, why bother to place any restrictions on Federal power at all? I would think also that States would be morally and justifiably right in leaving an agreement, the Union, that was entered into under fraudulent terms.
So what? Where's the Constitutional prohibition? What's the Supreme Court case that you're relying on?
There have been two U.S. Supreme Court cases on the question of whether or not a person can be required to have a driver's license - and in both cases the SC ruled that driving was NOT A PRIVILEGE! Rather, it was a right. That the ability to move about freely was the very essence of freedom.
These cases both involved States demanding the power to force driver's licenses on its citizens. The SC said no!
I studied those cases a long time ago, and can't recall the citations.
There have been two U.S. Supreme Court cases on the question of whether or not a person can be required to have a driver's license - and in both cases the SC ruled that driving was NOT A PRIVILEGE! Rather, it was a right. That the ability to move about freely was the very essence of freedom.
I studied those cases a long time ago, and can't recall the citations.
Perhaps
Bell v Burson(Georgia) For many years, government considered a driver's license "a privilege — not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Note: Were it not for Bell, it is doubtful that the California DMV today would provide hearings to contest DUI license suspensions. See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test.
This ruling does not say a state cannot require you to have a license to drive, it deals with requiring due process before the state can take away your license (suspension).
Bell v Burson(Georgia) For many years, government considered a driver's license "a privilege — not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Note: Were it not for Bell, it is doubtful that the California DMV today would provide hearings to contest DUI license suspensions. See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test.
This ruling does not say a state cannot require you to have a license to drive, it deals with requiring due process before the state can take away your license (suspension).
I am not sure, but I think the cases I studied were decided before any State called on a 14th Amendment "protection". The 14th Amendment converted Individuals to Persons on the same footing as State-charted corporations.
So my question - Why can't we jerk Monsanto's license to "control" or own world agriculture?
A license is a Government grant to act or perform something that would otherwise be illegal.
It would seem to me that there is no Constitutional power whatsoever for the Federal Government to make such a mandate.
Is there any other product or service that the federal government demands a private American citizen must purchase, or face federal fines and/or confiscation of income by the IRS? Oh, and not just any product or service, but one that meets with federal approval.
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.
