This is terrible, and it's really simple to see how it's unconstitutional. Unless a power is explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution, it's a state-power. I hate government overreach so much. It doesn't matter if it helps save lives or not, government shouldn't force us to buy something or face a penalty. If we had actually consulted physicians and doctors on what would help Americans I wouldn't have such a big problem though.
Well, I could see this being unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but if this is unconstitutional under the taxing power, than you are basically saying the federal government has no ability to tax anything. Which it clearly does.
I'm not saying Congress doesn't have the power to tax. On a side-note, something the government doesn't seem to understand is that the commerce clause deals with the transportation of goods, not the goods themselves.
You asserted that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The power to levy taxes is explicitely granted to the federal government. This is a tax, levied on every living, breathing, human being in these United States, that you are exempt from if you purchase health insurance. That is as constitutional as the exemptions for charitable giving, medical expenses, or asset depreciation.
anyone here hear about the second bill of rights?
hint: FDR,WWII,Japan,Germany,{SPOILER}==>free healthcare, afordable housing, jobs for all, equality for all,even more goodness.
Never implemented, has no effect on the case nor the law...
Just because the constitution doesn't explicitly say something doesn't mean the government can't do it. Some things are implied. Show me where in the constitution it says that the government is allowed to hire people to carry mail between post offices or where it says the government can regulate uranium. Show me where it says that the government is allowed to buy ammo to go in the guns that it is allowed to buy for the troops. None of these powers are explicitly authorized. But you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not see that they are implied.
-snip-
You got me on the uranium, though. I'm still not sure how this is relevant, though.
What exactly is your position here? From my perspective, it appears that you think I'm arguing that the government doesn't have the right to tax, or possibly that this bill doesn't count as a tax. (Even though the SCOTUS says it is.)
Post offices were a pretty common idea in the time of the Founding Fathers. The regulation of Uranium is covered under the commerce clause, since the mining and processing of Uranium is an inter-state bisusness.
-snip-
Please take this discussion to another thread. That is incredibly off topic.
Barely. The federal Congress has its enumerated powers, some vague statements that give it implied powers, and everything else is reserved for the States/people as per Amendment X.
Interesting. Everything I know has to do with cacique democracy rather than American or European democracy, so I literally have no experience as to how a 'functional' democracy plays out.
Who has the power to amend the constitution? And can the constitution be amended if said amendments would infringe on the bill of rights, which are themselves amendments?
2/3 of the congress, both houses, and 2/3 of the states to pass or strike down an amendment. You could include amendments that infringed on the Bill of Rights.
-snip-
Yes, where does it explicitly say that the purchase of ammo is allowed? The government is allowed to maintain and support an army but it's reasonable when looking at things from a 1780 perspective that people would have been expected to provide their own ammo (which they were at times for the militia).
It is explicitly stated that post offices can be established but it doesn't explicitly say that postal routes can be established.
If the purchasing of ammunition for the Army would provide for the common defense, it is allowed. Poastal routes would be inter-state commerce.
You got me on the uranium, though. I'm still not sure how this is relevant, though.
I think the point he was trying to make is that there are powers of government that are constitutional despite not being explicitly stated in the constitution.
This. In fact I'd go on to say that every function of government is either not explicitly stated or is tightly tied in with something explicitly stated.
You got me on the uranium, though. I'm still not sure how this is relevant, though.
I think the point he was trying to make is that there are powers of government that are constitutional despite not being explicitly stated in the constitution.
Which is great and all, but I knew that and had never said anything otherwise.
It's meant to show the absurdity of the argument "there's no healthcare clause". By that standard we shouldn't have any government whatsoever.
The consitution is a vague mistress. That's why there is an entire branch dedicated to it's interpretation. And yes if you were to only go by things that are explicatly stated the government would be much smaller. The trick is to relate things to those powers which are explicatly relegated to the federal government.
Author
Topic: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL (Read 25739 times)