Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[thereisnospoon]

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Are you that naive to think that government run government rationed medical care is a panacea?
Wait a minute. You said it was "free" . Then in the next sentence you said it "costs half as much as it costs here"...Ok genius...Is it free, or do you have to pay?
What makes you think you are entitled to no out of pocket medical care? How are the professionals supposed to earn a living if no one pays for care?
Look if you want socialized medicine, move to one a countries where it's available.
BTW, if socialized medicine is so good, why is it that my friend's brother in Canada had to wait 8 weeks for an MRI on his injured knee when I got one three days after I made my appointment?
You don't get to tell others what kind of insurance you want, then ram it down our throats.
Now you can open up a can of obscenities and send them my way. Cuz, that is all you have.
I don't give a shit how great you think it is in other countries or the magical care your family members got in Luxembourg or wherever the hell it was. If you like it so much, move!

So the fact that in the UK for instance people with serious illnesses such as cancer are denied treatment and told they should think about getting their affairs in order?
Yeah...Hey ,thanks for all the money we confiscated form you during your working career. We cannot afford to treat your sickness. Sorry.
What a mess they have in the UK....James Meek · It
This study also exposes the unsustaibability of socialized medicine. http://www.eucomed.org/uploads/Modu...futureproofing_healthcarefinalv2web_51011.pdf
Like all libs, you expressed the typical " I got mine and it was free". You state this with not a care as to how your care was funded. As long as the cost was not borne by you.

 

[The T]

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Health care reform is good and needed

However, reforming health care with a bill that gives the federal government the power to tell a private citizen they must buy products from a private company for the greater good is not good nor needed.

Nor are 'Panels' of unelected bureaucrats deciding if you are worth the State's expense under IPAB not good.

 

[Crackerjack]

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Then go back there. I'm certain you won't be missed here.

 

[daveman]

LOL dave.

Ask him how health insurance can be regulated under the interstate commerce laws when it is illegal for insurance companies to sell health insurance interstate, or across state lines.

now the silly answers you get to that are truly funny and scary in their ignorance.

Allow me to answer for him:

"Uhhhh...just BECAUSE!! You racist!!"

 

[thereisnospoon]

liberals.....They are programmed to honor their own self interests at the expense of others so as long as they incur no expense.
In other words, it's all about what they can get without having to pay for it.
To liberals, EVERYTHING has the possibility of becoming an entitlement.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Health care reform is good and needed

However, reforming health care with a bill that gives the federal government the power to tell a private citizen they must buy products from a private company for the greater good is not good nor needed.

Nor are 'Panels' of unelected bureaucrats deciding if you are worth the State's expense under IPAB not good.

Yeah a government "Benefits Advisory Board" sounds pretty unhealthy to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thomas's majority decision should strike down Wickard

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL dave.

Ask him how health insurance can be regulated under the interstate commerce laws when it is illegal for insurance companies to sell health insurance interstate, or across state lines.

now the silly answers you get to that are truly funny and scary in their ignorance.

er, um, well,

are you serious?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc]Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Authorizes Ordering Americans To Buy Health Insurance - YouTube[/ame]

it's right there in the "Good and Welfare" Clause

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJpUy3ulSb4]Conyers Good and Welfare clause - YouTube[/ame]

That's the Dem Speaker of the House and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee speaking!

 

[Crackerjack]

it's right there in the "Good and Welfare" Clause

Conyers Good and Welfare clause - YouTube

That's the Dem Speaker of the House and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee speaking!

It's right there in the Eleventy-Seventh Amendment!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

LOL dave.

Ask him how health insurance can be regulated under the interstate commerce laws when it is illegal for insurance companies to sell health insurance interstate, or across state lines.

now the silly answers you get to that are truly funny and scary in their ignorance.

er, um, well,

are you serious?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc]Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Authorizes Ordering Americans To Buy Health Insurance - YouTube[/ame]

it's right there in the "Good and Welfare" Clause

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJpUy3ulSb4]Conyers Good and Welfare clause - YouTube[/ame]

That's the Dem Speaker of the House and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee speaking!

Those 2 are the reasons why we have a supreme court to verify the constitutionality of legislation!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Somebody paid for it asshole.. although it certainly wasn't you. But I bet that's a way of life for you isn't it?

Fucking bum.

 

[Unkotare]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Now we know why you're not a judge, dope.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Now we know why you're not a judge, dope.

Deception's dumber than a sack of broken doorknobs.

 

[Unkotare]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Now we know why you're not a judge, dope.

Deception's dumber than a sack of broken doorknobs.

So it seems.

 

[NLT]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

After reading the "wheat story" you still trust the government to run your fucking healthcare? And you call us dolts? Negged dumbass.

Ditto for Dumbass

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He has abandoned his thread once he realized he was wrong and his talking points of hate wouldn't get him any traction as a distraction.

 

[Crackerjack]

He has abandoned his thread once he realized he was wrong and his talking points of hate wouldn't get him any traction as a distraction.

Or his mommy called him in for snack time.

 

[Listening]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Think about all the law that goes on the blocks if the SCOTUS knocks down ACA !

I get chills thinking of it.

BTW: The liberal SCOTUS seemed to forget all about precedent when it suited their needs.

You bastards have been screwing the country for almost a century.

Now, it might get made right and the bile tsunami from you morons will probably dissolve half of L.A.

A new horror movie: The day the libs puked in unison. It'll be rated A for assanine....but because of it's protagonists.

 

[bripat9643]

Think about all the law that goes on the blocks if the SCOTUS knocks down ACA !

I get chills thinking of it.

BTW: The liberal SCOTUS seemed to forget all about precedent when it suited their needs.

You bastards have been screwing the country for almost a century.

Now, it might get made right and the bile tsunami from you morons will probably dissolve half of L.A.

A new horror movie: The day the libs puked in unison. It'll be rated A for assanine....but because of it's protagonists.

It would be so beautiful to watch all the libs on suicide watch if the SC shoots it down.

 

[chikenwing]

Well keeping its simple,this wheat story is apples and 2x4's,the Gov told the farmer to STOP doing something,now the present day issue is the Gov telling people to do something they are NOT doing.

There is a major difference.