Supreme Court has an axe to grind.. - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-22-2010, 04:01 PM Thread Starter
Token Union Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 2,912
Supreme Court has an axe to grind..

Yall remember a couple of months ago when Obama tried to call out the Supreme Court during the State of Union address. Since Obama is a coward of course he called the Justices out at a time when they didn't have a voice or couldn't respond to his ramblings. Justice Alito was shown on National Tv shacking his head no and lipping the words "Thats not True" in response to Obama's cheap shot.

Well it looks like the shoe is on the other foot. With many states threatening to sue the Federal Government over Obama Care and its constituionality it's going to be no suprise when the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides the fate of Obama Care. Lets just hope and pray there is enough bad blood between Roberts, Alito and the other Conservative Justices on the Court that they provide Obama with the ultimate smack in the face and deem his Bill Unconstituional.

TRAIN TRASH it's like WHITE TRASH but with money.

My other vehicle is a Locomotive.

Don't cupple up without protection.
FreightTrain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
please GOD let the judges rule in favor of the majority,of the people that is!

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #3 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-22-2010, 05:40 PM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Yep, this may be our last glimmer of peaceful hope.

HOOCBB is offline  
 
post #4 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-22-2010, 05:45 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ft worth
Posts: 251
We can only hope.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill
razrbak is offline  
post #5 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-22-2010, 06:03 PM
WRECKIN' BALL BITCHES!
 
greenbullitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: listening to the box of excuses why fourteen3s million dollar car wont run a number...
Posts: 9,734
praying now....

resident heater core/ring&pinion installer
greenbullitt is offline  
post #6 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 09:17 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
the states can argue states rights all the want to, but will never be able to overturn the supremacy clause of the US constitution, even the conservative judges on the court will not over rule past court rulings regarding that clause.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #7 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 09:25 AM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
the states can argue states rights all the want to, but will never be able to overturn the supremacy clause of the US constitution, even the conservative judges on the court will not over rule past court rulings regarding that clause.
Moron.

The supremacy clause covers interstate commerce, meaning commerce has to take place for it to be regulated.

Last I checked, Health insurance can only be bought in state.

Also, this bill is regulating the non purchase of a product. If a person does not buy health insurance, no commerce has taken place, so it cannot be regulated.

No supreme court ruling has ever upheld the govt. forcing you to buy something.

The supreme court will not uphold this for the simple fact that the only qualifications for the Govt. to regulate you in this is that you are alive and breathing. They will not allow that precedent to be set, because that would mean unlimited control be given to the federal govt.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #8 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 10:22 AM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
Yep, this may be our last glimmer of peaceful hope.
Yep.

With immigration, cap and trade and possible gun control legislation coming, if the other branches don't stop Obama, the people will.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #9 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 11:02 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc281_99-0135 View Post
Moron.

The supremacy clause covers interstate commerce, meaning commerce has to take place for it to be regulated.

Last I checked, Health insurance can only be bought in state.

Also, this bill is regulating the non purchase of a product. If a person does not buy health insurance, no commerce has taken place, so it cannot be regulated.

No supreme court ruling has ever upheld the govt. forcing you to buy something.

The supreme court will not uphold this for the simple fact that the only qualifications for the Govt. to regulate you in this is that you are alive and breathing. They will not allow that precedent to be set, because that would mean unlimited control be given to the federal govt.
Moron huh? the supremacy cause in the constitution Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

for the supreme court to rule against a single federal mandate, would mean that all government mandates would be found unconstitutional.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #10 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 11:31 AM
tex
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: ATL
Posts: 12,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
for the supreme court to rule against a single federal mandate, would mean that all government mandates would be found unconstitutional.
Not even close. Deciding that one mandate is unconstitutional in no way, shape, or form affects previous decisions. In your interpretation, the Supreme Court has no power in the checks & balance theory, because as soon as something is signed, the Court can't touch it. That is completely contrary to the reason for having the Supreme Court.

“…what a disgrace it would be for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.” - Socrates
tex is offline  
post #11 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 11:45 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
the states can argue states rights all the want to, but will never be able to overturn the supremacy clause of the US constitution, even the conservative judges on the court will not over rule past court rulings regarding that clause.
Have you ever read the constitution.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #12 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 11:48 AM Thread Starter
Token Union Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino View Post
Have you ever read the constitution.
He's a liberal why would he do that.

TRAIN TRASH it's like WHITE TRASH but with money.

My other vehicle is a Locomotive.

Don't cupple up without protection.
FreightTrain is offline  
post #13 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 12:00 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
Moron huh?
for the supreme court to rule against a single federal mandate, would mean that all government mandates would be found unconstitutional.
Yes

Thank you for confirming your name for me, moron.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #14 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 12:17 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
Moron huh? the supremacy cause in the constitution Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

for the supreme court to rule against a single federal mandate, would mean that all government mandates would be found unconstitutional.
The supremacy clause is NOT a blank check of power to the Federal Government. Would you disagree? Do you think it means they can make any law they want and it supersedes any state law?

Any power not delegated to the Federal Government was reserved to the states or to the people.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #15 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:00 PM
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by razrbak View Post
We can only hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbullitt View Post
praying now....
What was said here.

How many states have filed suit?

'05 Redfire Mustang

"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX is offline  
post #16 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
the supremacy clause is up held every time it is challenged by a state...its a hard one to beat, you have to argue that the federal government can not pass laws that govern the states, when if you read the constitution it clearly read that the federal government is "the supreme law of the land." How does one win that argument?

remember the civil rights era, many states challenged the legitimacy of federal mandates regarding civil rights. same argument from the states, the fed cant tell states what to do, federal government stands behind its supremacy clause, and who do you think won?

every time in history that there has been a draft for a war, people and some states have argued against it citing the same arguments you hear today regarding a federal mandates, yet the supremacy clause was always upheld.

I dont like the bill, I think its just a redistribution of wealth, takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and creates a huge cluster fuck for everyone in between. but for states to spend millions of dollars fighting in federal courts, under the argument that federal mandates are unconstitutional, is a waste of money.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #17 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:22 PM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
the supremacy clause is up held every time it is challenged by a state...its a hard one to beat, you have to argue that the federal government can not pass laws that govern the states, when if you read the constitution it clearly read that the federal government is "the supreme law of the land." How does one win that argument?

remember the civil rights era, many states challenged the legitimacy of federal mandates regarding civil rights. same argument from the states, the fed cant tell states what to do, federal government stands behind its supremacy clause, and who do you think won?

every time in history that there has been a draft for a war, people and some states have argued against it citing the same arguments you hear today regarding a federal mandates, yet the supremacy clause was always upheld.

I dont like the bill, I think its just a redistribution of wealth, takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and creates a huge cluster fuck for everyone in between. but for states to spend millions of dollars fighting in federal courts, under the argument that federal mandates are unconstitutional, is a waste of money.
The difference with the civil rights argument is that our very own Declaration of Independence states that ALL men are created equal. It doesn't say all white men or all land owning men. ALL men.

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That said, this is an individual mandate, not a proclamation. Health Insurance is NOT a right. I should have the RIGHT to decide if I want it or not. This is where they are trampling our 10th amendment rights. These powers of personal decision are reserved for the people to make, not the federal government.

What's next? Federal Gov't mandates that we can only buy GM or Chrysler product?

HOOCBB is offline  
post #18 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
the supremacy clause is up held every time it is challenged by a state...its a hard one to beat, you have to argue that the federal government can not pass laws that govern the states, when if you read the constitution it clearly read that the federal government is "the supreme law of the land." How does one win that argument?

remember the civil rights era, many states challenged the legitimacy of federal mandates regarding civil rights. same argument from the states, the fed cant tell states what to do, federal government stands behind its supremacy clause, and who do you think won?

every time in history that there has been a draft for a war, people and some states have argued against it citing the same arguments you hear today regarding a federal mandates, yet the supremacy clause was always upheld.

I dont like the bill, I think its just a redistribution of wealth, takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and creates a huge cluster fuck for everyone in between. but for states to spend millions of dollars fighting in federal courts, under the argument that federal mandates are unconstitutional, is a waste of money.
This is not about the Federal Government's ability to pass laws that govern states, it is about the constitutionality of the laws that they pass.

By your logic the federal government can pass whatever law they want and it can't be challenged because they are the "supreme law of the land".

They may be the way it has been, but the constitution does not allow them to do whatever they want. Once again, it was not and is not a blank check of power.

They have a set realm of influence, and they have exceeded it. Plain and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
What's next? Federal Gov't mandates that we can only buy GM or Chrysler product?
Stop giving them ideas!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #19 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:37 PM
Lifer
 
davbrucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,841
Justice Anthony Kennedy better not live up to his name and vote with the liberals if this ever gets to the supreme court....he is usually the swing vote on heated debates like this one.
davbrucas is offline  
post #20 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 02:59 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
The first bolded part makes me giddy.

Quote:
Attorney General Abbott Challenges the Constitutionality of Federal Health Care Takeover

Bipartisan Group of 13 Attorneys General from Across the Country Challenge Newly Enacted Law

AUSTIN--Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and 12 state attorneys general today filed a legal action challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal health care law. The bipartisan legal challenge explains that the new law infringes upon Americans' constitutionally protected individual liberties; encroaches upon the states' constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty; forces states to spend billions of additional dollars on entitlement programs; imposes an unconstitutional tax; and violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Under the new law, for the first time in the nation's history, the federal government is attempting to force individual Americans to enter into contracts and purchase services from private companies-in this case, insurance companies-or face a penalty. The state attorneys general are challenging this so-called individual mandate requirement, explaining that such an imposition on the American people exceeds Congress' authority and violates Americans' constitutional rights. Additionally, the states are challenging provisions of the new law that will impose dramatic Medicaid spending increases on the states-including more than $24 billion in mandatory spending increases in the State of Texas.

Media links
Lawsuit filed by 13 Attorneys General

"The federal health care legislation signed today violates the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans' individual liberties," Attorney General Abbott said. "No public policy goal--no matter how important or well-intentioned--can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states have filed a legal challenge seeking judgment from the courts that the federal health care take over is unconstitutional."

The thirteen-state coalition, which includes Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, and Idaho, filed its legal challenge in the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Florida. It was filed shortly after President Barack Obama signed the bill into law. The legal action specifically challenges the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and names the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor as defendants because those federal agencies are charged with implementing the Act's constitutionally impermissible provisions.

Encroachment on Individual Liberties
According to the states' legal action, the federal health care bill violates both Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs' respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."

Explaining why the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Attorney General Abbott said: "Our nation's founding fathers had the wisdom to limit the federal government's authority by specifically enumerating the powers given to Congress. Today, the federal government is attempting an unconstitutional power-grab-and relying upon Congress' authority to regulate Commerce to justify their unprecedented overreach. If there are to be any limitations on the federal government then 'Commerce' cannot be twisted to cover every possible human activity under the sun-including mere human existence. The act of doing absolutely nothing does not constitute an act of commerce, and today's legal challenge reflects the states' attempt to preserve the individual liberties that were intended by our founders and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."

Removes States' Discretion
The states also charge that the Act "converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program." As a result, the Act effectively removes the states' discretion and constitutes a "derogation of the core constitutional principle of federalism upon which this Nation was founded...[and] exceeds the powers of the United States and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."

Unprecedented Encroachment on State Sovereignty
Further, the multi-state lawsuit explains that the federal health care law "represents an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" by imposing new federal Medicaid enrollment standards. According to the Texas Health & Human Services Commission, the Act will double the number of Medicaid recipients and therefore force the Texas taxpayers to spend an additional $24.3 billion on Medicaid over the next 10 years. In addition to dramatic spending increases, the new law will shift substantial administrative costs to the states and therefore requires that state employees and agencies devote considerable time and resources to implementing the Act. The lawsuit also cites "several unfunded mandates that will cost state governments significantly."

Unconstitutional Tax
Finally, the states allege that the Act imposes an unconstitutional tax on the American people. According to the states' legal action, "the tax penalty required under the Act, which must be paid by uninsured citizens and residents, constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax, in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States."

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #21 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 04:26 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06 View Post
This is not about the Federal Government's ability to pass laws that govern states, it is about the constitutionality of the laws that they pass.

By your logic the federal government can pass whatever law they want and it can't be challenged because they are the "supreme law of the land".

They may be the way it has been, but the constitution does not allow them to do whatever they want. Once again, it was not and is not a blank check of power.

They have a set realm of influence, and they have exceeded it. Plain and simple.



Stop giving them ideas!
as long as the laws they pass that are not prohibited by the constitution, being that the constitution gives the federal government supreme power, they can do what ever they want.

when it comes to the mandate in the health care bill, I think the best way for states to fight it is to simply declare that enforcing the mandate is not feasible. and then simply not enforce it.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #22 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 04:56 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
as long as the laws they pass that are not prohibited by the constitution, being that the constitution gives the federal government supreme power, they can do what ever they want.

when it comes to the mandate in the health care bill, I think the best way for states to fight it is to simply declare that enforcing the mandate is not feasible. and then simply not enforce it.
Wrong. Flat out wrong.
It does not have to be prohibited, it has to be specifically delegated. Health care, for instance is not delegated, nor prohibited, therefore it is " reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.





Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The constitution may give them the highest power, but it does not give them unlimited power.

It also could be interpreted that "This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land", and if a law is not made "in Pursuance thereof" it would be deemed unconstitutional, which is the whole point here.

Please, show me how that section (EDIT: Article) gives the Federal Government Supreme power to do whatever they want.







EDIT: I don't want to take it out of context, so here is Article VI in it's entirety.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #23 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 05:32 PM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
as long as the laws they pass that are not prohibited by the constitution, being that the constitution gives the federal government supreme power, they can do what ever they want.

when it comes to the mandate in the health care bill, I think the best way for states to fight it is to simply declare that enforcing the mandate is not feasible. and then simply not enforce it.


You are making yourself look like an idiot with these uneducated generalizations. You couldn't be more wrong.
talisman is offline  
post #24 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 05:32 PM Thread Starter
Token Union Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 2,912
Slow06,

You're wasting your time. Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.

TRAIN TRASH it's like WHITE TRASH but with money.

My other vehicle is a Locomotive.

Don't cupple up without protection.
FreightTrain is offline  
post #25 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 06:26 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman View Post
You are making yourself look like an idiot with these uneducated generalizations. You couldn't be more wrong.
if I am so wrong, how come it has not worked in the past when states have tried to challenge it?

cannonball996 is offline  
post #26 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 06:45 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,163
It don't matter if the courts toss it out or not.

It will take 2 years for it to even get there. You will start paying the new tax this June/July.

Any one care to guess how much you will be paying.


Oh cannonball996

This is how the constitution reflects power.

1. People
2. States
3. Federal government

I know this is not how it is now, but it was, and is how it should be
!



All men should know Honor first, above all else!

Honor is not holding your hand out for something you did not earn.
Honor is not forcing your ideas, or belief on others.
Honor is not something given to you by way of job, or title.

Honor is learned, earned, practiced and respected by all decent men and women.
tazz007 is offline  
post #27 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 07:10 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
as long as the laws they pass that are not prohibited by the constitution, being that the constitution gives the federal government supreme power, they can do what ever they want.

when it comes to the mandate in the health care bill, I think the best way for states to fight it is to simply declare that enforcing the mandate is not feasible. and then simply not enforce it.
The constitution specifically gives the federal government its powers, the court restricts the power.

Essentially what Greg Abbott is saying is correct, the act of not buying something is not commerce. Not by any definition of the word. This is new territory for the federal government. There is precedent for local government ordering people to buy something, car insurance is a great example and it is for "the common good". But, at the same time the requirement for car insurance is connected to a theoretical "privilege" (driving). This situation is the federal government mandating a private citizen buying something for no reason beyond "the common good". I'll be waiting to read the court opinion on this one. Even if they agree with the feds they are going to have to stretch a mile to justify it. If they do, then the federal government is going to be able to do anything it wants when it comes to things like this.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #28 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 07:34 PM
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
The constitution specifically gives the federal government its powers, the court restricts the power.

Essentially what Greg Abbott is saying is correct, the act of not buying something is not commerce. Not by any definition of the word. This is new territory for the federal government. There is precedent for local government ordering people to buy something, car insurance is a great example and it is for "the common good". But, at the same time the requirement for car insurance is connected to a theoretical "privilege" (driving). This situation is the federal government mandating a private citizen buying something for no reason beyond "the common good". I'll be waiting to read the court opinion on this one. Even if they agree with the feds they are going to have to stretch a mile to justify it. If they do, then the federal government is going to be able to do anything it wants when it comes to things like this.
Exactly. Since driving a car on public roads is granted to you by the government, you're required to buy insurance to protect other people from your negligence. You're not required to buy insurance for yourself! The only twisted way you can justify health insurance with this logic is I'm paying for it to protect you from my cold. But then, how do you apply that to heart disease, cancer, and other things that aren't contagious?

'05 Redfire Mustang

"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX is offline  
post #29 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 08:13 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreightTrain View Post
Slow06,

You're wasting your time. Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.
I'm not wasting my time if I can help him understand the constitution. If nobody had taken the time to explain it to me and encourage me to study it I might be in the same position.

I don't think he is an idiot, he is after all, smart enough to dislike the bill. I just don't think he entirely understands why he should dislike it. His reasoning is good, but there is so much more there than just redistribution of wealth.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #30 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 08:21 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostTX View Post
Exactly. Since driving a car on public roads is granted to you by the government, you're required to buy insurance to protect other people from your negligence. You're not required to buy insurance for yourself! The only twisted way you can justify health insurance with this logic is I'm paying for it to protect you from my cold. But then, how do you apply that to heart disease, cancer, and other things that aren't contagious?
Only by connecting it with the cash outlay that is required to care for you by others in the event that you don't have it. But I'd like to offer these points:

1) No one is really "required" to pay for their own health maintenance except as it relates to their own conscience.

2) If this stands the test of the court then the federal government is then free to require you to buy all sorts of things in the name of "the common good". In fact you could make the case that a whole slew of preemptive items should be required to eliminate the need for health care in the first place. For example buying healthy foods rather than fast food. A treadmill for your home. A membership to a health club. Wouldn't all these things be more efficient than insurance in furthering the idea of the common good?

3) You don't damage society in any way by not having healthcare outside of it violating the conscience of someone who can't stand seeing you suffer and feeling the need to help you. Essentially society is saying "we can't stand to see you suffer so we have to pay for you to get treatment". What if I want to suffer? What if my suffering is part of my "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the constitution?

4) How does this violate religious freedom for those who refuse any sort of medical treatment and only rely on God to save themselves? I agree they are kooks but think about it. Are they now required to pay for something they would never use or the use of which violates their beliefs?

Some of these things are why I don't think this could stand up to the court.
AL P is offline  
post #31 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 08:52 PM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
3) You don't damage society in any way by not having healthcare outside of it violating the conscience of someone who can't stand seeing you suffer and feeling the need to help you. Essentially society is saying "we can't stand to see you suffer so we have to pay for you to get treatment". What if I want to suffer? What if my suffering is part of my "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the constitution?
That's not in the constitution, it's in the Declaration of Indepenence.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#life

Quote:
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.

HOOCBB is offline  
post #32 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 09:53 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
if I am so wrong, how come it has not worked in the past when states have tried to challenge it?


Tried to challenge what in the past you dolt? The law that was passed this morning?
Fox466 is offline  
post #33 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 09:54 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
That's not in the constitution, it's in the Declaration of Indepenence.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#life
It doesn't matter really. It is one of those ideas (thus my quotes) like the expectation of non-invasive government where it isn't spelled out in the constitution but it is implied when interpreted by any reasonable person.
AL P is offline  
post #34 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 10:37 PM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P View Post
It doesn't matter really. It is one of those ideas (thus my quotes) like the expectation of non-invasive government where it isn't spelled out in the constitution but it is implied when interpreted by any reasonable person.
This is exactly the reason we are in this situation. Too many people are interpreting expressly written words into implied meanings. This is the same thing as saying the Constitution is a living and breathing, evolving document. It cannot be a living breathing document as it would make it too easy to modify. The Constitution has a difficult amendment process to keep it from being changed on a whim. It should be STRICTLY interpreted, not interpreted into whatever fits the issue at hand.

HOOCBB is offline  
post #35 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 10:43 PM
Lifer
 
davbrucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
This is exactly the reason we are in this situation. Too many people are interpreting expressly written words into implied meanings. This is the same thing as saying the Constitution is a living and breathing, evolving document. It cannot be a living breathing document as it would make it too easy to modify. The Constitution has a difficult amendment process to keep it from being changed on a whim. It should be STRICTLY interpreted, not interpreted into whatever fits the issue at hand.
This is what the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold...however, they do not seem to be able to move beyond their political leanings when they cast their votes.
davbrucas is offline  
post #36 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-23-2010, 11:19 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
This is exactly the reason we are in this situation. Too many people are interpreting expressly written words into implied meanings. This is the same thing as saying the Constitution is a living and breathing, evolving document. It cannot be a living breathing document as it would make it too easy to modify. The Constitution has a difficult amendment process to keep it from being changed on a whim. It should be STRICTLY interpreted, not interpreted into whatever fits the issue at hand.
Sounds great until you realize that if you strictly interpret the constitution then you have no right to privacy whatsoever. There are a lot of modern ideas that are built on legal precedent and not what is in the constitution.

I'm not saying it should be modified but to say the courts shouldn't define exactly how it applies is ridiculous.
AL P is offline  
post #37 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-24-2010, 08:08 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox466 View Post
Tried to challenge what in the past you dolt? The law that was passed this morning?
tried to challenge the supremacy clause

cannonball996 is offline  
post #38 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-24-2010, 08:48 AM
Lifer
 
Hass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Couldn't they ammend this bill to exclude the part that requires everyone to buy insurance and still keep the rest of this atrosity intact?
Hass is offline  
post #39 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-24-2010, 09:14 AM
Lifer
 
davbrucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hass View Post
Couldn't they ammend this bill to exclude the part that requires everyone to buy insurance and still keep the rest of this atrosity intact?
Pg 53- Severability

“If any provision of the Act, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.”
davbrucas is offline  
post #40 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-24-2010, 09:29 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
tried to challenge the supremacy clause
From what I have read the supremacy clause applies when there is a conflict between state and federal law. That may be important for the part where they are suing the feds over medicaid but I don't see how it applies to the part of this discussion where people are forced to buy medical insurance.
AL P is offline  
post #41 of 41 (permalink) Old 03-24-2010, 03:49 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06 View Post
Wrong. Flat out wrong.
It does not have to be prohibited, it has to be specifically delegated. Health care, for instance is not delegated, nor prohibited, therefore it is " reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.





Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The constitution may give them the highest power, but it does not give them unlimited power.

It also could be interpreted that "This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land", and if a law is not made "in Pursuance thereof" it would be deemed unconstitutional, which is the whole point here.

Please, show me how that section (EDIT: Article) gives the Federal Government Supreme power to do whatever they want.







EDIT: I don't want to take it out of context, so here is Article VI in it's entirety.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Come on cannonball, you reply to the insults but not the questions?

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome