Constitutional ignorance on display

[manifold]

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

 

[WillowTree]

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

I'll try.. It's in the constitution of the United States that congress may levy taxes, and that those taxes are to be dispersed evenly. (which isn't done.)

In the State of Florida it is unconstitutional to levy an income tax..


Ravi lives in Fla.

 

[uscitizen]

We do have state constitutions as well as a federal one.

 

[Valerie]

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

 

[Valerie]

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

 

[goldcatt]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

 

[elvis]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

but it just may be a lunatic she's looking for...

 

[Valerie]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

It was in the context of his comment that the health insurance mandate is constitutional on the state level and presumably UNconstitutional at the federal level...

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

 

[goldcatt]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

It was in the context of his comment that the health insurance mandate is constitutional on the state level and presumably UNconstitutional at the federal level...

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Depends. I presume this is referring to the health care act popularly known as Obamacare?

Nobody knows if it's constitutional at the Federal level or not. It's a case of first impression. *shrug*

My opinion is that it is, but probably shouldn't be. But you can take that and $5 and get yourself a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

At the State level? Same principles should apply. I didn't know mani was a Tenther. Strange people, those Tenthers. Taking away any and all liberty is still liberty as long as it's the States and not the Feds doing it. Bizarre reasoning.

 

[Valerie]

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

All elements of a state constitution are required to be federally constitutional...

Can you give an example of one of these many things that are done at the state level which are unconstitutional at the federal level so I can understand what you mean...?

 

[Jackson]

We can always ask Sheila Jackson Lee....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

but it just may be a lunatic she's looking for...

Turn out the lights.....

 

[Mad Scientist]

Need context. She may be right. You may be crazy.

but it just may be a lunatic she's looking for...

Turn out the lights.....

Don't try to save me...

 

[Ravi]

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

I'll try.. It's in the constitution of the United States that congress may levy taxes, and that those taxes are to be dispersed evenly. (which isn't done.)

In the State of Florida it is unconstitutional to levy an income tax..


Ravi lives in Fla.

The state would levy no income tax. By your logic we'd be free to not pay federal income tax.

 

[Ravi]

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

What?

 

[WillowTree]

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

I'll try.. It's in the constitution of the United States that congress may levy taxes, and that those taxes are to be dispersed evenly. (which isn't done.)

In the State of Florida it is unconstitutional to levy an income tax..


Ravi lives in Fla.

The state would levy no income tax. By your logic we'd be free to not pay federal income tax.

rong ravi.. rong.

 

[goldcatt]

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

What?

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

 

[Ravi]

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

What?

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.

My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

 

[goldcatt]

What?

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.

My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

Not entirely true. There are some things the states can do that are reserved to them and them alone. The Feds aren't empowered to do it. One example would be marriage and family law (questions of DOMA constitutionality aside). Federal courts are barred from hearing things like custody and divorce cases.

There are also parts of the Bill of Rights that aren't incorporated to the States, like the 7th.

But you're right about health insurance in general. The question on constitutionality that's a case of first impression is enforcing the mandate with a tax/penalty, it's a commerce clause issue not a 10th Amendment issue.