Opinions about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

In a few short words
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

 

[hortysir]

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

I know that 2 negatives equal a positive, but WTF does 3 negatives mean?

The way a Citizen declares something Constitutional or not is through elections.
You vote for who you want to make law or repeal laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I know that 2 negatives equal a positive, but WTF does 3 negatives mean?

The way a Citizen declares something Constitutional or not is through elections.
You vote for who you want to make law or repeal laws.

That's one way of doing it, theoretically. Practically, legislation is rarely repealed. When the Republicans are back in power we'll hear a good many excuses as to why it's not "the right time" to repeal the health care law.

The way a citizen declares something unconstitutional is to simply do it. If they can then convince enough people that they're right they should then proceed to lobby their state legislature to nullify the unconstitutional legislation.

 

[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.

Precedent includes the most recent decisions

Yeah, and the most recent decision before Brown v Board of Education was Plessy v Ferguson which upheld segregation in public schools.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

In a few short words
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

In translation..

If'n I don't like the law....Ima gunna git my gun

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Well, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I guess it's not so puzzling after all.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yeah, and the most recent decision before Brown v Board of Education was Plessy v Ferguson which upheld segregation in public schools.

There have been many desegregation decisions and laws passed since Brown

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

In a few short words
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

In translation..

If'n I don't like the law....Ima gunna git my gun

You may just thank people like me one day.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I guess it's not so puzzling after all.

You're a libertarian fan of the Warren Court? That's still pretty puzzling.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

The country. We cannot continue with the debt those in Washington seem to think they should heap upon us.

Immie

 

[manifold]

I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

This strikes me as overtly contradictory. Is not case law a pretty good leading indicator when it comes to speculating about what judges think the Constitution should be?

 

[manifold]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

We already have a program that provides healthcare for people who do not have the money. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. What is unconstitutional about this new law is forcing people to have coverage who do not want nor need it. It is the loophole that will ensnare the American people in the control trap of the federal Government. If the government is big and powerful enough to give you anything and everything they are also big and powerful enough to take it away. When the enforcement of this new law starts the government will be able to control your life.

I agree that forcing people to have coverage (as the current bill does) ought to be ruled unconstitutional ( although I see that as unlikely). But I'm submitting that if they removed the compulsory elements of the bill, and instead simply provided healthcare to the masses, it would not be unconstitutional. Perhaps an economic disaster, but not unconstitutional.

 

[manifold]

Just because a government does something does not automatically make it right.
Your argument ***** much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well ***** just doesn't hold water.

You may not think precedent holds water, but you'd be an idiot for thinking it. No offense.

 

[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.

Now THAT'S a stretch


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/dewm1/Junk/stretch300.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Not at all. We are government of the people by the people for the people. What is more basic to the general welfare of the people than their health?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Precedent includes the most recent decisions

Yeah, and the most recent decision before Brown v Board of Education was Plessy v Ferguson which upheld segregation in public schools.

There have been many desegregation decisions and laws passed since Brown

Yes, since Brown. I was talking about prior to Brown.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, so I guess it's not so puzzling after all.

You're a libertarian fan of the Warren Court? That's still pretty puzzling.

My personal political opinions are completely irrelevant to what I pointed out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/dewm1/Junk/stretch300.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Not at all. We are government of the people by the people for the people. What is more basic to the general welfare of the people than their health?[/QUOTE]

So where were all the health care programs in the name of the general welfare prior to 1965? Why did it take almost 200 years for the government to start paying part of peoples' health care costs if Washington, Jefferson, et al. envisioned the government nannying people in the name of the general welfare? Where was universal health care in 1830, 1870, 1930?

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with a welfare, nanny state, but you already knew that because it's been pointed out ad nauseum on this forum time and time again. You are either willfully ignorant or simply don't care and are willing to bastardize the Constitution and our personal freedoms to fulfill your own personal gain and greed. You are the problem in this country, not the solution. You and your like minded ilk are nothing but parasites leaching off the rest of us and you are going to be the downfall of this nation.

 

[Claudette]

Ditto.

Couldn't agree more.