Appeals Court rules HC law constitutional...again

[Bern80]

The point of having specifically enumerated powers is to do exactly what you're complaining about: set clear limits on the democratic will of the people.

Actually, no, it's not. It's to ensure that we have a federal system with a limited NATIONAL government, and preserve the limited independence of the STATE governments. Since the state governments are democratically elected, too, and are NOT restrained by enumerated powers -- a state government CAN do anything the people want, except what is explicitly forbidden either by the U.S. Constitution or its own -- the enumerated powers in the Constitution do not put limits on the democratic will of the people. They just require that that will be expressed at the state rather than federal level, except as authorized.

The Bill of Rights does set limits on democracy. Enumerated powers do not.

Except that isn't what's happening here. This is the FEDERAL government requiring that every citizen purchase a product from another private business.

I really wish I understood the thought process of the judges that have ruled that this bill is constitutional, especially this supposedly conservative judge. I don't get why that precedent doesn't scare people.

 

[rightwinger]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

I welcome you not to buy health insurance


Of course if you were To become sick.....republicans will chant "let him die"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

I welcome you not to buy health insurance


Of course if you were To become sick.....republicans will chant "let him die"

If I become sick and can't fix it myself I will pay for my care out of my pocket. What is it about paying for what is yours that you and others like you incomprehensible?

 

[Bern80]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

I welcome you not to buy health insurance


Of course if you were To become sick.....republicans will chant "let him die"

If I become sick and can't fix it myself I will pay for my care out of my pocket. What is it about paying for what is yours that you and others like you incomprehensible?

There's a fundamental disconnect. They view lack of insurance as equally death because apparently they believe that is the one and only way of paying for medical services.

 

[dblack]

The point of having specifically enumerated powers is to do exactly what you're complaining about: set clear limits on the democratic will of the people.

Actually, no, it's not. It's to ensure that we have a federal system with a limited NATIONAL government, and preserve the limited independence of the STATE governments.

It seemed clear enough that the discussion was about NATIONAL government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government has no authority to force me to buy something I do not want. If that's the case then they also have the authority to force people to buy guns.

You forgot to cite your case law in support; otherwise this makes no sense.

 

[dblack]

There's a fundamental disconnect. They view lack of insurance as equally death because apparently they believe that is the one and only way of paying for medical services.

I believe that's been the goal of the insurance industry for decades. And the government has been happy to help them with that because it centralizes control, always a boon for power mongers.

Even if we agreed that we should use government coercion to finance our health care, it could be done in a way that retained most of our freedom. But such solutions will never be considered because, when presented with options of how a given goal will be approached, our esteemed leaders will always choose the one that gives them more power - and robs us of more of our freedom.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The government has no authority to force me to buy something I do not want. If that's the case then they also have the authority to force people to buy guns.

You forgot to cite your case law in support; otherwise this makes no sense.

7.62 x39 7.62x 54R, 5.56 45acp 12gauge are my case law.

 

[Bern80]

The government has no authority to force me to buy something I do not want. If that's the case then they also have the authority to force people to buy guns.

You forgot to cite your case law in support; otherwise this makes no sense.

Good. Cause it makes no sense to us either. How exactly can we be country that prides itself on liberty while insisting that our federal government has the authority to make us purchase things?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I really wish I understood the thought process of the judges that have ruled that this bill is constitutional, especially this supposedly conservative judge. I don't get why that precedent doesn't scare people.

I outlined that in my post and linked the ruling. The ruling explains their reasoning.

You need to understand that these judges are conservatives but not ideologues; they are not interested in partisan politics. They rule in the context of precedent and case law.

That this is a 'democratic bill' is irrelevant; unlike Obama's enemies and other partisan rightists, judges of good faith are not interested in injuring the president politically by striking down the ACA. For these judges the only issue is does Congress have the authority per the Commerce Clause to regulate healthcare; judges from across the political spectrum have said it does.

In any event, the political time for the ACA is well over now, this will be resolved by the Supreme Court, not at the ballot box.

Good. Cause it makes no sense to us either. How exactly can we be country that prides itself on liberty while insisting that our federal government has the authority to make us purchase things?

Again, I can only refer you to the ruling:

[W]e should be just as cautious about prematurely or unnecessarily rejecting the
Government’s Commerce Clause argument. The reason is plain and needs little elaboration: Striking down a federal law as beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause authority is a rare, extraordinary, and momentous act for a federal court.

This legislation was enacted, moreover, after a high-profile and vigorous
national debate. Courts must afford great respect to that legislative effort and should be wary of upending it.

Courts should refrain from overturning acts of Congress, as they reflect the will of the people.

We are obliged–and this might well be our most important consideration–to presume that acts of Congress are constitutional. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 607. Appellants have not made a clear showing to the contrary.

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality.

[W]e are interpreting the scope of a long-established constitutional power, not recognizing a new constitutional right.

And accordingly it’s appropriate to show deference to the long-established constitutional powers of Congress.

 

[dblack]

Courts should refrain from overturning acts of Congress, as they reflect the will of the people.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The whole point of constitutional limits is to 'overturn' the will of the people when they've gone too far. A court that refrains from addressing the constitutionality of a law simply because it has majority support is failing to do its job.

I'm always a little curious how far people are willing to take this line of reasoning. Are you really advocating unlimited majority rule?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I really wish I understood the thought process of the judges that have ruled that this bill is constitutional, especially this supposedly conservative judge. I don't get why that precedent doesn't scare people.

I outlined that in my post and linked the ruling. The ruling explains their reasoning.

You need to understand that these judges are conservatives but not ideologues; they are not interested in partisan politics. They rule in the context of precedent and case law.

That this is a 'democratic bill' is irrelevant; unlike Obama's enemies and other partisan rightists, judges of good faith are not interested in injuring the president politically by striking down the ACA. For these judges the only issue is does Congress have the authority per the Commerce Clause to regulate healthcare; judges from across the political spectrum have said it does.

In any event, the political time for the ACA is well over now, this will be resolved by the Supreme Court, not at the ballot box.

Good. Cause it makes no sense to us either. How exactly can we be country that prides itself on liberty while insisting that our federal government has the authority to make us purchase things?

Again, I can only refer you to the ruling:



Courts should refrain from overturning acts of Congress, as they reflect the will of the people.

We are obliged–and this might well be our most important consideration–to presume that acts of Congress are constitutional. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 607. Appellants have not made a clear showing to the contrary.

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality.

[W]e are interpreting the scope of a long-established constitutional power, not recognizing a new constitutional right.

And accordingly it’s appropriate to show deference to the long-established constitutional powers of Congress.

Courts should refrain from overturning acts of Congress, as they reflect the will of the people.

Really? why did the founders think it was necessary to have a supreme court in the first place? Would this be your opinion if Congress passed something you were against and felt it was unconstitutional even though the majority wanted it?