Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Rig

[Two Thumbs]

Adam Winkler: Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Right

Sucks when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it?

 

[gekaap]

This is all very nice speculation, but I believe I'd like to see some hard evidence that 1) lack of health insurance is leading to a greater frequency of communicable disease outbreaks, and 2) that the provisions in this healthcare law will prevent that, to a high degree of certainty. I'm not big on making public policy based on the fevered daydreams of your imagination.

A great deal of laws are passed on speculation of their ability to provide a public benefit. Your complaints on the matter, nor your ad hominems, will not create a constitutional problem with this law. Speculation fuels immigration policy, for example. The courts have long recognized the legitimate government interest served by enforcing immigration laws, which has allowed certain types of enforcement investigation practices, like traffic stops stopping individuals traveling near the border who are merely suspected of being illegal immigrants.

See, state laws requiring people to have liability coverage were instituted only after many years of hard evidence showing that people without insurance have a tendency to get into accidents and then leave their victims in the lurch financially.

For someone who is complaining about a lack of hard evidence, this is an awfully remarkable claim to make without your own hard evidence. Aside from that, your point here does not matter, because the constitutional test is whether there is a legitimate government interest being served by the law. Since state requirements for people to have car insurance do indeed serve a legitimate government interest, those laws are constitutionally permissible. I find it amazing that for all this talk and babble, you and those agreeing with you refuse to acknowledge the application of the legitimate interest standard.

There are other ways around this problem besides sticking innocent bystanders with the bill. I see no legitimate interest by the federal government in the debt collection of non-federal-government entities.

The government has a legitimate interest in preventing uninsured people from receiving emergency medical care and then not paying for those services. It causes health care providers to go unpaid for their services and lose money, and it causes the costs for everyone else to rise. There is also an legitimate interest in seeing reasonable health care made accessible to all citizens. It can help deter the spread of communicable diseases, reduce incidence of birth defects through proper neonatal care, contribute to greater overall productivity across the country by treating illness and injury early on, so as to minimize lost productivity caused by problems compounded from lack of attention, reduce disability claims in the long term providing an opportunity to address continuing health problems instead of them being ignored until its too late by people who can't afford health care. And no, I'm not citing hard evidence to these potential benefits because such hard evidence is not necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. The fact that the law is designed and intended to achieve those benefits is sufficient.

 

[gekaap]

The proper conduct required by a Rule of Law is that which places prohibitions on harm to others (i.e., laws against theft, fraud, assault).

Not having health insurance is a personal decision.

Shooting heroin is a personal decision. Like what I did there? Probably not, but unfortunately your line of reasoning leaves something to be desired. As I've already said multiple times, I DO NOT LIKE the health care law. I was against it from the very beginning and remain disapproving. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that its unconstitutional

It's a pretty safe bet that you believe abortion should be legal based the government having no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body - yet you wish to see the government have control over all other aspects of our bodies.

Being required to obtain health insurance does not mean that the government will have control over your body. This kind of stupid comment is exactly what helps those who are in favor of the bill. Having health insurance does not mean that you must also seek out health care, nor does it mean that the government has any say in your treatment of any given health issue. What you're saying is just as much nonsense as people who were saying that the health care bill would create death panels. Fighting a bad idea with stupidity, lies, ignorance, and misinformation is worse than supporting a bad idea as a sincere believer.

 

[gekaap]

Again you don't seem to understand how the constitution was written. It GRANTS powers and authority to the federal government. If it isn't explicitly stated what the fed can do then they can not do it. And tell people what they have to purchase is not there. The states may enact any laws they like that are not in direct violation of the constitution.

Obviously it is you who doesn't understand. The necessary and proper clause grants the federal government the power to serve any legitimate government interest. Go read it, it's there.

You have misinterpreted this clause as well. It does not give government power to do anything in its interest. it gives government the power to enact laws that are neccessary and proper for carrying out it's duties as SPECIFICALLY outlined by the constitution. That and the general welfare clause get butchered to no end by you libs who choose remain willfully obtuse to what the constitution actually says.

Oh, okay. You might want to go tell the courts that, and you might have to go back an awful long way in time to tell them. What in the constitution gives the federal government the right to make drugs illegal? If you look, you'll see that it's not there at all. But the necessary and proper clause grants the government to make drugs illegal, because doing so serves a legitimate government interest. And by "legitimate government interest" it means providing for the public welfare.

BTW, I'm not a liberal, and as I've already said I have been opposed to the health care bill from the beginning. But I don't let my disapproval bring me to a conclusion that it must be unconstitutional, because I refuse to be willfully obtuse to what the constitution actually says. Unlike all you partisans, who base your "knowledge" of the constitution on what you want it to say or not say.

 

[gekaap]

You and the democrats liking the law doesn't make it constitutional........

If you had bothered to pay attention, you'd see me repeatedly saying that I don't like the health care bill, never have, and remain opposed to it. The fact that I agree with the majority of court opinions so far regarding its constitutionality does not mean that I like the law. It just means that I have the ability to consider the question critically and on its merits, instead of injecting my personal desires into it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Stupid is not a name it's a description and an accurate one in your case.

Well, since you want to play tomato/tomahto, I'll use different terminology: Your ad hominems do not establish anything and suggest that you are not capable of providing a reasonable response.

A flu shot offers protection but does not guarantee you will not get the flu. I know, facts are a bitch.

And what is your point? It's still a preventative measure that is used to prevent the likelihood that one will contract the illness. And this, in turn, prevents the likelihood of a person spreading the illness. The government doesn't require you to get a flu vaccine, but it does often require you to get vaccinated against things like polio, measles, mumps, and other diseases. The point in all of this is that the government requiring people to buy car insurance does not serve any greater interest in public safety than also exists in matters of health care.

No one made the claim that auto insurance prevents accidents. Your strawman failed.

You rebutted my arguments about government requiring people to buy car insurance by arguing that a flu shot will not prevent someone getting the flu. The ONLY way that could have been relevant would be for you to be implying that buying car insurance does suffice to prevent something. So if that was not your intention, then your comment was irrelevant. In either case, the end result is still the same, which is that you made an illogical argument.

The governments interest in this case is to strip away individual freedom and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

This is an emotional reaction on your part, and is devoid of any logical merit. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I said I am opposed to the health care bill. But my opposition and displeasure does not provide an ample reason for me to conclude that it is unconstitutional. While I tend to agree with the several court cases so far that have affirmed the constitutionality of the bill, I'm looking forward to higher courts to offer decisions with more authority. I haven't seen for myself any of the decisions, so that's all I can really do. As I've said already, fighting the health care bill on faulty reasoning will not be effective in defeating it.

For the last time you are not required by law to buy car insurance if you choose not to own or drive one. You are required under Obamacare to buy health insurance and you have no choice, either purchase it or be fined, jailed or both.

 

[Liability]

Flaylo's thread shows that the Faux Meme Machine is Active and Working --- and Spinning on the Left.

ENTIRELY correct.

The lefties LOVE to pretend that the actions of the Judiciary are "judicial activism" ONLY when the Courts strike down leftist legislation.

These lefties, including the White House Ministry of Propaganda, are entirely dishonest.

 

[Bern80]

Oh, okay. You might want to go tell the courts that, and you might have to go back an awful long way in time to tell them. What in the constitution gives the federal government the right to make drugs illegal? If you look, you'll see that it's not there at all. But the necessary and proper clause grants the government to make drugs illegal, because doing so serves a legitimate government interest. And by "legitimate government interest" it means providing for the public welfare.

There is another possibility you know. Show me how smart you are and see if you can figure it out.

BTW, I'm not a liberal, and as I've already said I have been opposed to the health care bill from the beginning. But I don't let my disapproval bring me to a conclusion that it must be unconstitutional, because I refuse to be willfully obtuse to what the constitution actually says. Unlike all you partisans, who base your "knowledge" of the constitution on what you want it to say or not say.

I have read the it several times actually. YOU go back and read the neccessary and proper clasuse because you seem to be confusing it with the general welfare clause. This is the entirety of th section that contains the necessary and proper clause;

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So.... the necessary and proper clause allows government to carry into execution what? Why the FOREGOING POWERS. As in the ones come before and any of the other powers granted to the fed by the constitution. YOUR interpretation that it lets congress do whatever it feels like is simply incorrect.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Commucrats seem to have a problem with The Constitution

Oh now THERE'S a shocker!

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is common for farm families to have their children driving farm vehicles on the property to get chores done before they're old enough to qualify for driver's licenses, and they are not required so long as they stay off of public property. My uncle owns two large tobacco farms in Kentucky, and all of my cousins routinely drove as soon as they could reach the pedals and see out the windshield.

Usually, there are statutory exceptions that allow farm equipment to be operated without a license. But the argument presented was that the exception exists based on alleged constitutional grounds of the government not having the constitutional authority to require insurance for vehicle use on private property.

I'm not talking about farm equipment like tractors and combines. I'm talking about regular, run-of-the-mill pickup trucks.

And the argument presented was, quite simply, that the government requires licenses and insurance for vehicle operation on private property. You said it, and you were wrong. Either demonstrate that you were correct, or admit that you were wrong. Easy-peasy.

If you'd like to cite me a specific statute that proves me wrong, go ahead. But I doubt you can.

It is not necessary to produce any statutory evidence on my part, because the argument is on of constitutional exception and applicability. Whether a state government can constitutionally require you to buy car insurance does not stop at private property. That is a statutory matter.

It is abso-fucking-lutely necessary to present statutory evidence when you tell me that the government requires licenses and insurance to drive a regular vehicle on private property. Don't try to run and hide behind "the argument was this". You made a statement, and now you can either substantiate it, or admit that it was in error.

It is irrelevant whether the state government CAN Constitutionally and legally require you to have insurance on private property. The point is, they don't. You said they do. Now prove it.

On the other hand, there are areas in this country where not having your vehicular transportation makes it virtually impossible to survive. It all depends on the area and how things are organized.

Really? Where might that be? I live in Tucson, which is hugely spread out, and yet lots of people still manage to get by without owning or driving a car. As I said, I myself did so for many years.

Either way, though, living in a place where having and driving a car is a necessity was YOUR CHOICE. No one forced you to do it. You could move someplace where that isn't the case. Where does one move to get away from the federal government's health insurance mandate, other than to another country?

But that is really irrelevant, because the questions, as I've said so many times already, is whether a legitimate government interest in served by the law. The government has the right to require you to buy car insurance, because a legitimate government interest is served by such a law. Government has the right to require that you buy the services of gun safety classes in order to carry a gun in public, because a legitimate government interest is served.

No, Sparky, the question is NOT whether a legitimate government interest is served. THAT question comes AFTER you answer the question of "Can the government legally do that?" If the answer is no, then I don't GIVE a fuck if you think the government's interests are served. I give an extremely small fuck about "the government's interests" in the first place.

And you really, REALLY need to stop tossing out the generic phrase "the government" as though all governments are exactly the same, indistinguishable and interchangeable, you're talking about one and you're talking about them all. The more you do it, the more ignorant and willfully blind you sound.

This is completely untrue. The constitution explicitly proclaims itself to be the highest law of the land. State governments cannot violate your 1st amendment rights, for example. The "necessary and proper" clause extends broad powers to the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest. States are indeed limited by the US constitution. The specific enumerated powers of Congress and federal government are beyond the reach of what the states can do. The states have specific limitations placed on them by the constitution. Underlying the dual structure of government affirmed by the constitution is the fact that state laws cannot contradict those of federal law.

Okay, what part of me saying, "State laws cannot conflict with the Constitution, but the powers of state government are not laid out there" did you need drawn for you in crayon? Oh, and technically, when it was first written, the First Amendment didn't apply to anyone but the federal government. That's why it says, "CONGRESS shall make no law . . ." It was only later that the federal government decided to extend such things to lower governments.

There's no such thing as a "necessary and proper clause" that extends any powers to the federal government. That's a fiction leftists made up to let them get around the legal requirement of actually getting the approval of the governed for their governance.

The specific enumerated powers of the federal government are just that: specific and enumerated. They have fuck-all to do with what the powers of state governments are and aren't. So just because the federal government is prohibited from doing something doesn't mean the state governments are. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments again, Sparky.

The powers of the state governments are delineated not by the US Constitution, but by the individual state Constitutions.

And the federal government has powers to do things that states cannot. But that does not really apply here.

That's what I keep trying to tell you, Punkinhead. Just because the federal government is unable to do something because of the constraints of the US Constitution does NOT mean the lower governments are unable to do it, because unless otherwise noted, the US Constitution does not specify state government power. This is why you need to stop conflating all governments into one big, generic lump.

Not really. The constitution only recognizes one municipality, that being Washington D.C. Any subdivision of a state derives its power from that state, and for legal purposes is essentially nothing more than an extension of the state. Aside from that, the example I used is not one of municipal ordinances. The laws of my state prohibit me from owning a cheetah. And to be honest, there is not much of a legitimate interest in doing so because, contrary to common belief, cheetahs are not especially dangerous. They are actually less aggressive than dogs. But I don't want to derail the subject at hand, so I'll move onto the fact that I am talking about state laws that prevent me from owning a pet cheetah in my state, while other states (like Pennsylvania for example) will require not only that I by permits, but also that I buy veterinary services.

What in the holy flying fuck does this have to do with ANYTHING?

Do YOU realize that the constitution also contains the "necessary and proper" clause? Do you realize that this clause grants the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest as they find necessary and proper?

No, becaue it doesn't, and no, because it doesn't. I'm not interested in hearing about liberal legal fictions arising from their deliberate and willful inability to read plain English.

The constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the power to build an interstate highway system. But I don't think that you would question the constitutionality of that act.

That would be because the federal government built the Interstate Highway System to facilitate and regulate interstate commerce, which is entirely Constitutional. Also, FYI, the federal government doesn't shoulder the expense of building and maintenance on the interstates all by itself. The states themselves actually provide part of the financing, and the actual work.

It also does not explicitly grant Congress the power to assemble an Air Force. But I don't think you will challenge the constitutionality of that either.

This has also been addressed in another thread. The Air Force originally began as part of the Army, which - of course - is mentioned in the Constitution.

Also not found in the constitution is the explicitly granted power for the federal government to assign each citizen a number. But I don't think you will challenge the constitutionality of your SSN.

I'm sorry, but WHY do you think I wouldn't challenge the Constitutionality of the Social Security System? Because YOU think it such a spiffy, wonderful program that obviously, everyone else in the nation must agree? Guess again.

Nor are the explicitly granted powers to identify a flag, declare holidays, purchase land, regulate railroads, or establish a minimum wage. But I don't expect to hear challenges to the constitutionality of those either.

Again, I can't imagine where you get these ideas. I think the federal government absolutely should mind its own fucking business with regards to the minimum wage, because they shouldn't be micromanaging the private sector. While I can understand the occasional necessity of the federal government purchasing land, I do think the Constitution should be amended to cover it and I definitely think they should be severely curtailed in so doing.

Regulating railroads also came about as part of the interstate commerce clause.

Declare holidays? The only ones anyone really pays attention to are the ones where businesses are actually closed, and in that case, it's certainly within the federal government's purview to declare which days their own offices will be closed.

While the states have the right, via their own constitutions, to define their own powers, that does not mean that the states have unlimited rights and powers. If the requirement to buy insurance was beyond the constitutional scope of the federal government's power over the people, it would also be beyond the scope of state powers over the people. Just like the constitution preserves states' rights, it also preserves individual rights, and that protection goes beyond the scope of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. States do not have the power to enact any law over the people unless it passes the same test as would be demanded of the federal government: whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

BEEEEP!!! Wrong answer. No one said the states have unlimited powers. They DO, however, have DIFFERENT powers than the federal government, and no, they are NOT prevented from doing something just because the federal government is prevented from doing it. What would be the point of having several different levels of government that all do exactly the same thing?

Yes, the Constitution DOES protect individual rights, but it doesn't lay out the specific distinctions of which rights belong to the states and which belong to the individual citizens (other than those specific individual rights delineated in and protected from the federal government by the Amendments). That is left up to lower laws like the state Constitutions.

And you are just naive if you think laws are required to demonstrate "a legitimate government interest", especially since there's no way in hell you're going to get millions of people to agree on what constitutes that. Laws are only required to demonstrate 1) that they don't violate another law with higher jurisdiction, and 2) that enough of the voters support it to keep the lawmakers from getting voted out of office.

I'm going to have to answer the rest of this later, because my husband is clamoring for the computer and I really want to go get dinner.

 

[EriktheRed]

“If this bill doesn’t survive judicial scrutiny, then what?”

Well, first, the government would have a mess on its hands dealing with the unwinding of a complex health care bill which includes not only health care provisions, but radical changes to the student loan infrastructure, tax cuts for most (and tax increases for some), and more. The states attorneys general suing to overturn the health care law would find themselves shifting from popular ground to highly unpopular ground once it became known that the consequence of success would include collecting billions in back taxes which Americans suddenly owed because the tax break which existed under the health care bill had disappeared.

Most obviously, overturning the health care bill would return the health care regime to the status quo ante which most everyone agrees was both failing and unaffordable, a miserable combination. Democrats, having just adopted a centrist health care bill only to watch it attacked by those it was designed to appease, would have little interest in taking another shot at a centrist bill. Instead, the progressive base would almost certainly refuse any compromise which didn’t include a public option, Medicare buy-in for all, single payer, or something similar.

The alternatives to the health care law

 

[rdean]

Adam Winkler: Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Right

Hey stupid, forcing people to buy a product or a service is unconstitional. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it states the government can force you to buy anything.

You liberals are simply stupid and for some reason you seem to hate freedom.

tax

 

[rdean]

Adam Winkler: Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Right

Sucks when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it?

So you agree it's judicial activism?

Just curious, describe "judicial activism" on the left. Gay rights? Women's rights?

 

[Liability]

Adam Winkler: Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Right

Sucks when the shoes on the other foot doesn't it?

So you agree it's judicial activism?

Just curious, describe "judicial activism" on the left. Gay rights? Women's rights?

Define "judicial activism" at all.

But you won't, rdunce. You can't. You are a pathetic fuckwit.

 

[gekaap]

And the argument presented was, quite simply, that the government requires licenses and insurance for vehicle operation on private property. You said it, and you were wrong. Either demonstrate that you were correct, or admit that you were wrong. Easy-peasy.

Actually, the argument was that government has the constitutional power to require you buy car insurance because that demand only applies to using public roads. That, however, is false. It is YOU who must provide evidence to support that position if you are going to insist that it is true, otherwise you're arguing from ignorance. You tried to support that by attesting to what you've seen family do, but that support fails because you have described statutory actions that carve out those exceptions. You have failed to demonstrate that there is a constitutional mechanism at work that creates the exception described.

It is abso-fucking-lutely necessary to present statutory evidence when you tell me that the government requires licenses and insurance to drive a regular vehicle on private property. Don't try to run and hide behind "the argument was this". You made a statement, and now you can either substantiate it, or admit that it was in error.

Wait a second, you're going to accuse me of hiding behind "the argument was this" two seconds after you tried incorrectly tell me what the argument was? As a matter of logic, I do not have to provide any evidence to disprove an alleged exception to the application of law. By demanding that from me, you are demanding proof of a negative. And by affirming that such an exception exists without providing any evidence in support thereof, you are arguing from ignorance.

It is irrelevant whether the state government CAN Constitutionally and legally require you to have insurance on private property. The point is, they don't. You said they do. Now prove it.

You're trying to misrepresent the argument. The argument was presented to me that requirements to buy insurance are constitutional because the requirements only apply to public roads, and that a constitutional mechanism renders vehicular use on private property exempt. I have maintained that those exceptions are statutory in nature. For example, take Maryland's statutes that provide explicit exceptions to registration for farm vehicles:

(c) Exceptions - In general.- Registration under this subtitle is not required for:

(1) A vehicle that is driven on a highway:

(i) In conformity with the provisions of this title relating to manufacturers, transporters, dealers, secured parties, owners or operators of special mobile equipment, or nonresidents; or

(ii) Under a temporary registration card issued by the Administration;

(2) A vehicle owned and used by the United States, unless an authorized officer or employee of the United States requests registration of the vehicle;

(3) A farm tractor or any farm equipment;

Maryland statute also makes exceptions to licensing requirements for certain public road usage.

(3) An individual while driving any road machine, farm tractor, or farm equipment temporarily driven on a highway in this State, or dock equipment at Dundalk or Locust Point marine terminals which does not require registration under the provisions of this article

Really? Where might that be? I live in Tucson, which is hugely spread out, and yet lots of people still manage to get by without owning or driving a car. As I said, I myself did so for many years.

Good for you. Your situation, of course, speaks for the entire country.

Either way, though, living in a place where having and driving a car is a necessity was YOUR CHOICE. No one forced you to do it. You could move someplace where that isn't the case. Where does one move to get away from the federal government's health insurance mandate, other than to another country?

A great many people do not live somewhere because it is their choice. They could have been raised there, and without transportation would not have any way to choose to live somewhere else. So your comparison is question begging at best.

No, Sparky, the question is NOT whether a legitimate government interest is served. THAT question comes AFTER you answer the question of "Can the government legally do that?" If the answer is no, then I don't GIVE a fuck if you think the government's interests are served.

Nobody care what you "give a fuck" about, because what you want has no bearing on the constitutionality of a matter. Whether there is a legitimate government interest is what the constitution "gives a fuck" about.

I give an extremely small fuck about "the government's interests" in the first place.

Your lack of knowledge really shows here. A "legitimate government interest" means that the government has a reasonable basis to provide for such and such public benefit.

And you really, REALLY need to stop tossing out the generic phrase "the government" as though all governments are exactly the same, indistinguishable and interchangeable, you're talking about one and you're talking about them all. The more you do it, the more ignorant and willfully blind you sound.

Actually, you're the one who is sounding ignorant, because your entire argument is based on your personal desires. Like you said, you "don't give a fuck" so you want the same to be true for the constitutionality of the matter.

Okay, what part of me saying, "State laws cannot conflict with the Constitution, but the powers of state government are not laid out there" did you need drawn for you in crayon? Oh, and technically, when it was first written, the First Amendment didn't apply to anyone but the federal government. That's why it says, "CONGRESS shall make no law . . ." It was only later that the federal government decided to extend such things to lower governments.

Actually, what happened was that significant problems arose because of constitutional ambiguity which was oft interpreted differently at different times by different bodies. The due process clause of the 14th amendment was intended to clarify things, not extend things.

There's no such thing as a "necessary and proper clause" that extends any powers to the federal government. That's a fiction leftists made up to let them get around the legal requirement of actually getting the approval of the governed for their governance.

I guess you should get a time machine and inform a history full of courts about that, since you're the authority.

The specific enumerated powers of the federal government are just that: specific and enumerated. They have fuck-all to do with what the powers of state governments are and aren't. So just because the federal government is prohibited from doing something doesn't mean the state governments are. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments again, Sparky.

Your ad hominem attempts do not provide any weight to your position. There are many things that the constitution does not explicitly enumerate as powers of Congress, yet there has never been a constitutional question about them. The constitution does not grant Congress the explicit power to raise an Air Force. It does not grant Congress the power to purchase land. There are other powers not explicitly granted to the Congress by the constitution, but they are not challenged. If you are going to take this stance, then you must also conclude that the Air Force is unconstitutional, and that the the Louisiana Purchase was illegal. Are you prepared to take that stance?

The powers of the state governments are delineated not by the US Constitution, but by the individual state Constitutions.

Okay, let's go with this for a moment. If your theories about constitutional authority are valid, then we can consider for a moment that state powers come exclusively from state constitutions, and apply the same theories of explicitly enumerated powers to those state constitutions. In doing so, you would have to reject the constitutionality of any state law requiring the purchase of insurance, unless that state's constitution explicitly grants that power to the state government. However, those explicit grants of power do not exist in state constitutions.

That's what I keep trying to tell you, Punkinhead. Just because the federal government is unable to do something because of the constraints of the US Constitution does NOT mean the lower governments are unable to do it, because unless otherwise noted, the US Constitution does not specify state government power. This is why you need to stop conflating all governments into one big, generic lump.

The fact that you continue to resort to ad hominems illustrates that you lack real substance with which to debate. Also, misrepresenting my arguments does no good either. The states do not have any power to violate the constitutional rights of the people. If any constitutionally protected liberty of the people is violated by the mandate to purchase insurance, then any unconstitutionality will bind the hands of the federal government as well as state governments.

No, becaue it doesn't, and no, because it doesn't. I'm not interested in hearing about liberal legal fictions arising from their deliberate and willful inability to read plain English.

That's good, because I'm not espousing any liberal fictions arising from willful inability read plain English. I am arguing that the notion that the health care bill is unconstitutional is not based on fact, that the reasoning involved would require also calling unconstitutional other accepted public policies as well as being in opposition to established interpretations by the courts.

That would be because the federal government built the Interstate Highway System to facilitate and regulate interstate commerce, which is entirely Constitutional.

Then you and I should have no right to use the interstate for personal reasons.

Also, FYI, the federal government doesn't shoulder the expense of building and maintenance on the interstates all by itself. The states themselves actually provide part of the financing, and the actual work.

The finances do not affect the constitutionality of the matter.

This has also been addressed in another thread. The Air Force originally began as part of the Army, which - of course - is mentioned in the Constitution.

But is not part of the Army any longer, yet the federal government continues to build and maintain it. As strict a view on the federal government's powers would make this unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but WHY do you think I wouldn't challenge the Constitutionality of the Social Security System? Because YOU think it such a spiffy, wonderful program that obviously, everyone else in the nation must agree? Guess again.

Yet again you are presenting your emotions and your personal like or dislike of something as establishing the constitutionality of it. Your dislike of the social security system does not establish a constitutional problem. It establishes personal problem for you.

Again, I can't imagine where you get these ideas. I think the federal government absolutely should mind its own fucking business with regards to the minimum wage, because they shouldn't be micromanaging the private sector. While I can understand the occasional necessity of the federal government purchasing land, I do think the Constitution should be amended to cover it and I definitely think they should be severely curtailed in so doing.

Again, you are confusing your personal desires with whether a matter is constitutional. All of these things are unconstitutional. The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them unconstitutional.

Declare holidays? The only ones anyone really pays attention to are the ones where businesses are actually closed, and in that case, it's certainly within the federal government's purview to declare which days their own offices will be closed.

But this is not the only affect of legal holidays. For starters, employers have to give their employees the day off, or pay them overtime. Full time employees, anyway.

BEEEEP!!! Wrong answer. No one said the states have unlimited powers. They DO, however, have DIFFERENT powers than the federal government, and no, they are NOT prevented from doing something just because the federal government is prevented from doing it. What would be the point of having several different levels of government that all do exactly the same thing?

Well, one reason is because the dual organizational system was in existence before the constitution was written. Either way, the states do not have the right to violate constitutionally protected liberties of the people. If a given public policy violates such a liberty, the matter does not become permissible because state or federal government came up with the policy.

And you are just naive if you think laws are required to demonstrate "a legitimate government interest", especially since there's no way in hell you're going to get millions of people to agree on what constitutes that. Laws are only required to demonstrate 1) that they don't violate another law with higher jurisdiction, and 2) that enough of the voters support it to keep the lawmakers from getting voted out of office.

Actually, you're just very unknowledgeable apparently. As an example, go check out the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage a couple years ago. Part of the reason they gave for finding the statutory prohibition against gay marriage unconstitutional was that no legitimate government interest could be served by the ban.

 

[Bern80]

That's good, because I'm not espousing any liberal fictions arising from willful inability read plain English. I am arguing that the notion that the health care bill is unconstitutional is not based on fact, that the reasoning involved would require also calling unconstitutional other accepted public policies as well as being in opposition to established interpretations by the courts.

People keep citing some precedent and case law on this but no one has ever actually presented any that I can see. When exactly did the fed ever require citizens to buy things? Where is the case law you speak of that previously dealt with what the FEDERAL government can make people purchase? Other than insurance in 2014 what is the federal government making you purchase under threat of fine?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Adam Winkler: Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Right

Hey stupid, forcing people to buy a product or a service is unconstitional. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it states the government can force you to buy anything.

You liberals are simply stupid and for some reason you seem to hate freedom.

tax

You are forced to buy tax?

Damn you're stupid.

Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[grunt11b]

It's always funny when the left cry judicial activism when things dont go there way, but when judges rule that the second amendment is an individual right they lose there damn minds.
When things go the lefts way "like the taking of a human beings life" Abortion, they support it in roe verse wade, but anything else, they hate it, friggen turds.

 

[gekaap]

People keep citing some precedent and case law on this but no one has ever actually presented any that I can see. When exactly did the fed ever require citizens to buy things? Where is the case law you speak of that previously dealt with what the FEDERAL government can make people purchase? Other than insurance in 2014 what is the federal government making you purchase under threat of fine?

I think you've misunderstood my argument. Whereas some people here are arguing for a hyper restricted federal government, this interpretation is not accurate. The courts regularly use the test of legitimate and compelling government interests inasmuch as the necessary and proper clause grants Congress the power to fulfill such compelling government interests.

The question then becomes whether the federal government has a legitimate interest that is served in passing the health care bill. The answer is yet.

The next question then becomes whether the requirement in the bill for people to buy a product infringes upon a constitutionally protected liberty. The answer is no. Governmental mandates to purchase products occasionally happen, perhaps the most compelling being the requirements that are often placed on people in order to carry a handgun. Since carrying a handgun is an explicitly protected liberty under the constitution, and since there is no constitutional problem for requiring a person to buy things such as permits and safety classes in order to exercise said constitutional liberty, the requirement to buy something cannot in and of itself create a constitutional problem.

A third question then arises: Whether the specific requirement of purchase is reasonable, in that it reasonably promotes the aforementioned government interest. Requiring a person to take safety classes as a prerequisite for carrying a handgun reasonably promotes the government's interest to ensure public safety. However, if a law (for example) required a person seeking a permit to carry a handgun required that you buy a 12 month subscription to Good Housekeeping magazine, that requirement would NOT reasonably promote the government's interest in public safety. Therefore, such a requirement would be unconstitutional.

 

[grunt11b]

They dont have anything legitimate when it comes to forcing citizens to pay for it, any other argument you may have is void, the constitution does not allow it, therefore it is void and not recognized. The constitution does not mean what you think it means through interpretation, it means what it says in fact. You'll just have to get over that fact. Tell your professor he is a moron, and he should be put up on a wall and shot for treason.