Opinions about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare

[hortysir]

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Who are we but a nation of laws.
As much as one may not like a law, once it goes through all of our checks and balances, as law-abiding citizens what choice do we have?

I hate the seatbelt law, but guess what???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

I'm not so sure about Kagan being needed to decide this is constitutional, but as for the rest I think you're 100% correct, inasmuch as it would take a rebellion to get your way on this one. But you need poor people to wage a war. Good luck getting poor people to fight against access to free healthcare.

1 in 4 household in America have a gun but most have more than one gun have you ever heard of the 3 percenters? All it would take is to get 3 percent of the gun owners in America together and they would still outnumber the armament of the federal government 3-1.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Who are we but a nation of laws.
As much as one may not like a law, once it goes through all of our checks and balances, as law-abiding citizens what choice do we have?

I hate the seatbelt law, but guess what???

I don't wear a seat belt. I refused to give a citation to people who did not wear a seat belt when I was a police officer, back in the 80's. In the Military no person in uniform is requried to obey and unlawful order. So why should I the employer of those in Congress obey what I know is unconstitutional?

 

[Immanuel]

I had a discussion with the person a while back who was a obama supporter, even though he is a big obama supporter he said that the health care coverage bill would never be passed. I told him it would. Guess what I was correct. I am not wrong when I say if kagan is appointed to the supreme court and the healthcare law makes to the high court it will not be ruled unconstitutional.

Are you thinking that I am saying it will be? Did I say that?

Also, we don't know when such a case will arrive before the court. It could literally be months after Kagan takes the bench and maybe not for years. If it is years, who knows what the make up of the court will be?

Immie

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Let me put it this way, I am not about to participate in a civil war over this, if that is what you mean.

I am no fan of the law and I suspect that should it not be defeated our grandchildren will be cussing us out wondering why we saddled them with the bull shit law... that is if the U.S. lasts that long.

Immie

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Agreed. Even if it was constitutional it would be declared null and void because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 because he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm curious about something. To those who argue that existing precedent and case law are unimportant, invalid, and should be ignored, are you arguing that the Supreme Court should draw upon the power of judicial review to strike down some or all of the health care law as unconstitutional? And if that's the case, how do you reconcile those positions? Judicial review itself isn't a power explicitly given to the courts in the Constitution, it arises from precedent and case law.

Just because something is precedent doesn't make it correct. If the courts always followed precedent then we'd still have segregated schools.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you thinking that I am saying it will be? Did I say that?

Also, we don't know when such a case will arrive before the court. It could literally be months after Kagan takes the bench and maybe not for years. If it is years, who knows what the make up of the court will be?

Immie

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Let me put it this way, I am not about to participate in a civil war over this, if that is what you mean.

I am no fan of the law and I suspect that should it not be defeated our grandchildren will be cussing us out wondering why we saddled them with the bull shit law... that is if the U.S. lasts that long.

Immie

Nor do I want a war with the federal government. However, you fail to understand that with this new law the government will have control over your life. Everything that you do with be under their control.

 

[Immanuel]

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Let me put it this way, I am not about to participate in a civil war over this, if that is what you mean.

I am no fan of the law and I suspect that should it not be defeated our grandchildren will be cussing us out wondering why we saddled them with the bull shit law... that is if the U.S. lasts that long.

Immie

Nor do I want a war with the federal government. However, you fail to understand that with this new law the government will have control over your life. Everything that you do with be under their control.

Until the collapse.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.

Who are we but a nation of laws.
As much as one may not like a law, once it goes through all of our checks and balances, as law-abiding citizens what choice do we have?

I hate the seatbelt law, but guess what???

I don't wear a seat belt. I refused to give a citation to people who did not wear a seat belt when I was a police officer, back in the 80's. In the Military no person in uniform is requried to obey and unlawful order. So why should I the employer of those in Congress obey what I know is unconstitutional?

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

 

[Greenbeard]

Just because something is precedent doesn't make it correct. If the courts always followed precedent then we'd still have segregated schools.

But even this response is a bit puzzling. It's rare to find conservatives raising up the Warren Court as an example of the appropriate role the Court ought to play in our government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me put it this way, I am not about to participate in a civil war over this, if that is what you mean.

I am no fan of the law and I suspect that should it not be defeated our grandchildren will be cussing us out wondering why we saddled them with the bull shit law... that is if the U.S. lasts that long.

Immie

Nor do I want a war with the federal government. However, you fail to understand that with this new law the government will have control over your life. Everything that you do with be under their control.

Until the collapse.

Immie

The collapse of the country or the collapse of the backs of the people from the weight of the burden placed on thier backs by the government. Which ever comes first.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The health of our nation's people directly affects our national security and the federal government has the explicit power to defend our nation and provide for its security.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm curious about something. To those who argue that existing precedent and case law are unimportant, invalid, and should be ignored, are you arguing that the Supreme Court should draw upon the power of judicial review to strike down some or all of the health care law as unconstitutional? And if that's the case, how do you reconcile those positions? Judicial review itself isn't a power explicitly given to the courts in the Constitution, it arises from precedent and case law.

I have no faith in the courts whatsoever. Nullification is a much better tool for upholding the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who are we but a nation of laws.
As much as one may not like a law, once it goes through all of our checks and balances, as law-abiding citizens what choice do we have?

I hate the seatbelt law, but guess what???

I don't wear a seat belt. I refused to give a citation to people who did not wear a seat belt when I was a police officer, back in the 80's. In the Military no person in uniform is requried to obey and unlawful order. So why should I the employer of those in Congress obey what I know is unconstitutional?

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm curious about something. To those who argue that existing precedent and case law are unimportant, invalid, and should be ignored, are you arguing that the Supreme Court should draw upon the power of judicial review to strike down some or all of the health care law as unconstitutional? And if that's the case, how do you reconcile those positions? Judicial review itself isn't a power explicitly given to the courts in the Constitution, it arises from precedent and case law.

Just because something is precedent doesn't make it correct. If the courts always followed precedent then we'd still have segregated schools.

Precedent includes the most recent decisions

 

[rightwinger]

I don't wear a seat belt. I refused to give a citation to people who did not wear a seat belt when I was a police officer, back in the 80's. In the Military no person in uniform is requried to obey and unlawful order. So why should I the employer of those in Congress obey what I know is unconstitutional?

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

And it does not say that I myself can't declare a law to be unconstitutional.....doesn't prove that I can

 

[hortysir]

The health of our nation's people directly affects our national security and the federal government has the explicit power to defend our nation and provide for its security.

Now THAT'S a stretch

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The health of our nation's people directly affects our national security and the federal government has the explicit power to defend our nation and provide for its security.

My health is my responsibility not the governments I do not work for the government they work for me I am the employer they are the employee's

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

And it does not say that I myself can't declare a law to be unconstitutional.....doesn't prove that I can

What's stopping you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who are we but a nation of laws.
As much as one may not like a law, once it goes through all of our checks and balances, as law-abiding citizens what choice do we have?

I hate the seatbelt law, but guess what???

I don't wear a seat belt. I refused to give a citation to people who did not wear a seat belt when I was a police officer, back in the 80's. In the Military no person in uniform is requried to obey and unlawful order. So why should I the employer of those in Congress obey what I know is unconstitutional?

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

Really? interesting that you think I cannot use common sense to understand when the government is trying to take away my rights to freely choose. Show me where the founding fathers said the federal government was supposed to control the people?