Pelosi: Consitutional Authority "is not a serious question"

[saveliberty]

The fine aspect is where they invite a Supreme Court review. A direct financial burden for an unjust law will surely meet a higher standard for having that review.

 

[kyzr]

The fine aspect is where they invite a Supreme Court review. A direct financial burden for an unjust law will surely meet a higher standard for having that review.

I think we all know that UHC will eventually end up at the USSC to test the constitutionality. (All of us except Nancy Pelosi)

 

[rightwinger]

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?

Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,

You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.

My vote goes with the latter

Does it matter who the CNS is? Would you like to get the answer if you ask the same question?

Would you like to know the answer to this question? Do you know the answer?

Of course I know the answer.

It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.

Now your problem is one of legal precident. With the US involved in programs such as Medicare and Social Security for over 70 years, all the legal precident says "Yes it is Constitutional" and "Yes that is a stupid question"

 

[Murf76]

Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?

Getting into Commerce Clause law, the bounds of it, and how it has been used over the decades, is an interesting topic. Let me just say here that, in theory, Congress can't pass a law under its powers via the Commerce Clause if that law is unconstitutional. The question from a practical standpoint is whether you can get a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) to say it is unconstitutional.

You mention a 4th amendment violation, for example. That's an interesting opinion to discuss, but I think it is unlikely a court would agree with you, and if they don't then whether you think it violates the 4th amendment isn't going to have much practical effect.

So it's not just a matter of what you or I might think about the Constitutionality of aspects of proposed health care legislation, it comes down to what the courts think about it. Think they're going to strike it down?

The counter to the 10th amendment argument is easy. The 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The answer that people will provide to the argument that the 10th Amendment argument is that the Constitution DOES delegate the power to regulate health care to Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. After all, the 10th Amendment on its face deals with powers NOT delegated.

I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.

Without the authority of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no authority at all save at the point of a gun.

The commerce clause allows Congress to regulate business across state lines. So where is their authority to regulate intrastate commerce since they've barred states from interstate trading? And where is their authority to ENGAGE in commerce themselves?

Frankly, none of these assholes have made much of a job of answering to the Constitution; not Democrat, not even Republican.


And I'm in agreement with Americano that the federal SEIZURE of our private medical records doesn't get by the 4th. Or the 5th, 9th, or 10th, for that matter.

On what planet does it even begin to make logical sense that the federal government can't wiretap your phone, but it can use your medical records (your "papers") for it's own purposes and without reasonable cause? Whether one argues a medical record to be the property of the patient or the property of the doctor, what it damn sure is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.

Liberals should be HOWLING about this intrusion by government into their personal lives. But hypocrites that they are, they DEFEND it instead.

It'll serve your asses right, when instead of subpoenaing your medical records, all some bureaucrat has to do is look them up on a federal website. Because if any of you actually believe this horseshit about 'electronic records saving lives and driving down costs' you deserve what you get. Once the initial law is on the books, fine-tuning in the name of the public good is the norm. Databasing our medical records is not only the foundation of a national healthcare system, which they've looked into the camera and denied... but is subject to every kind of misuse.

Frankly, I'm pure as the driven snow.
So, it's you freaks who might not be able to talk to your doctor about a mental health issue, STD, or drug addiction without fear that it'll eventually be used for something other than medical purposes. Have fun with that.

 

[Murf76]

It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.

How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.

 

[rightwinger]

It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.

How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.

Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.

Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you

 

[Murf76]

It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.

How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.

Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.

Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you

Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.

Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.

 

[saveliberty]

9th
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference.

10th
But Justice Thomas' opinion, whatever its controversy or inconsistencies, appears to rely primarily on an interpretive legal logic: that the states have the authority to determine how their courts apply the death penalty, just as they have the authority to prohibit it.

Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the last item in the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." For many in the "strict constructionist" camp, this is a fundamental principle of constitutional law, and the absence of specific federal language constraining the right of the state of Kansas in this respect, is sufficient to permit the peculiarities of the Kansas statute.

 

[rightwinger]

How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.

Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.

Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you

Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.

Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.

Murph...I am not calling YOU a wing-nut

If you think the 9th and 10th amendment apply, then prove it in a court of law not on a message board.

 

[Ame®icano]

How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.

Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.

Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you

Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.

Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be changed with the times. The intention never was that the interpretation of the words should change with time. As Murf76 said, it is written in English. If something in the Constitution doesn't jibe with Americans' needs today then there are mechanisms in which to change it.

One thing that shouldn't be done is to interpret the words to suit your needs. To do so undermines and strips the document of all meaning and authority.

 

[Ame®icano]

Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.

Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you

Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.

Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.

Murph...I am not calling YOU a wing-nut

If you think the 9th and 10th amendment apply, then prove it in a court of law not on a message board.

Bill is not out yet, they are still writing it behind closed doors.

If or when Congress pass the bill, depending whats in the bill, it may go to the "court of law". Until then we are discussing it here.

Name one reason why we shouldn't.

 

[DiamondDave]

Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.

Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.

Murph...I am not calling YOU a wing-nut

If you think the 9th and 10th amendment apply, then prove it in a court of law not on a message board.

Bill is not out yet, they are still writing it behind closed doors.

If or when Congress pass the bill, depending whats in the bill, it may go to the "court of law". Until then we are discussing it here.

Name one reason why we shouldn't.

Because the LW kook does not want anyone questioning government redistribution schemes and such... they just want people lockstep so that they can have their entitlements and programs at the expense of someone else

 

[Liability]

Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?

Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,

You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.

My vote goes with the latter

Does it matter who the CNS is? Would you like to get the answer if you ask the same question?

Would you like to know the answer to this question? Do you know the answer?

Of course I know the answer.

It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.

Now your problem is one of legal precident. With the US involved in programs such as Medicare and Social Security for over 70 years, all the legal precident says "Yes it is Constitutional" and "Yes that is a stupid question"

Leave it to a far left (dishonestly named) leftwinger like fauxright[sic]wanker to come up with that retarded formulation.

The moron actually claims that a thing is Constitutional UNTIL declared unconstitutional.

And the shithead apparently believes that imbecility.

What a fucking moronfauxright[sic]wanker is.

For the edification of leftards who are similarly misinformed, ignorant and stupid, an UnConstitutional Act isn't magically "Constitutional" until and unless some old guys in black dresses "declare" it to be otherwise. It is what it is. If it is Unconstitutional, formal recognition of that is very helpful. But it doesn't BECOME UnConstitutional only when the SCOTUS so declares. Its UnConstitutionality precedes the "discovery" of such UnConstitutionality by the SCOTUS which makes that "declaration."

 

[Ame®icano]

Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?

Getting into Commerce Clause law, the bounds of it, and how it has been used over the decades, is an interesting topic. Let me just say here that, in theory, Congress can't pass a law under its powers via the Commerce Clause if that law is unconstitutional. The question from a practical standpoint is whether you can get a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) to say it is unconstitutional.

You mention a 4th amendment violation, for example. That's an interesting opinion to discuss, but I think it is unlikely a court would agree with you, and if they don't then whether you think it violates the 4th amendment isn't going to have much practical effect.

So it's not just a matter of what you or I might think about the Constitutionality of aspects of proposed health care legislation, it comes down to what the courts think about it. Think they're going to strike it down?

The counter to the 10th amendment argument is easy. The 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The answer that people will provide to the argument that the 10th Amendment argument is that the Constitution DOES delegate the power to regulate health care to Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. After all, the 10th Amendment on its face deals with powers NOT delegated.

I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.

Article 1 Section 8. specifically enumerates all of the powers that We The People have delegated to the Congress for the purposes of taxing and spending. Unless something is specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, any expendatures for that item are unconstitutional.

Here it is again:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

What this means is that if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. If it's not specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the States and/or We The People can do it. How hard is to understand this?

If the people really want something provided by the federal government, such as health insurance, then they must first be able to invoke a part of the Constitution that specifically authorizes the federal government to do so. If it's not there, and We The People really do want it (this doesn't mean running poll on 1000 people), the Constitution specifically provided a mechanism through which it can be done, it's called Article 5. Lacking invocation of Article 5, any law that provides for the taxing and spending for anything not specifically authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Therefore, rightwinger... "innocent until proven guilty" can NOT be used in comparison with "constitutional until proven unconstitutional" for simple reason that Constitution already specify what is and what is not constitutional.

 

[Steerpike]

What this means is that if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. If it's not specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the States and/or We The People can do it. How hard is to understand this?

It's very easy to understand. The point you are missing is that the proponents will simply say it is enumerated because it falls under the Commerce Clause, and given the last 50 or 60 years of Commerce Clause law the courts will likely agree with them.

 

[lawbuff]

For the edification of leftards who are similarly misinformed, ignorant and stupid, an UnConstitutional Act isn't magically "Constitutional" until and unless some old guys in black dresses "declare" it to be otherwise. It is what it is. If it is Unconstitutional, formal recognition of that is very helpful. But it doesn't BECOME UnConstitutional only when the SCOTUS so declares. Its UnConstitutionality precedes the "discovery" of such UnConstitutionality by the SCOTUS which makes that "declaration."

There is a rule of not only Congressional, but state statutory construction, that a law enacted is "presumed constitutional". The SC will, in all avoidance, decide the constitutionality as a last resort.

SS has been held Constitutional under the General Welfare clause.

I see what you are saying, but as far as the legislative purpose behind an act, whether it is actually perceived that way by Congress in thier minds, as we know how politicians are, two faced at times, it is constitutionally enacted.

 

[Liability]

For the edification of leftards who are similarly misinformed, ignorant and stupid, an UnConstitutional Act isn't magically "Constitutional" until and unless some old guys in black dresses "declare" it to be otherwise. It is what it is. If it is Unconstitutional, formal recognition of that is very helpful. But it doesn't BECOME UnConstitutional only when the SCOTUS so declares. Its UnConstitutionality precedes the "discovery" of such UnConstitutionality by the SCOTUS which makes that "declaration."

There is a rule of not only Congressional, but state statutory construction, that a law enacted is "presumed constitutional". The SC will, in all avoidance, decide the constitutionality as a last resort.

SS has been held Constitutional under the General Welfare clause.

I see what you are saying, but as far as the legislative purpose behind an act, whether it is actually perceived that way by Congress in thier minds, as we know how politicians are, two faced at times, it is constitutionally enacted.

There is indeed a rule of presumed Constitutionality.

But that's not the question.

If a "law" were to get "passed" and signed by the President which compelled the Federal Government to round up Japanese-Americans and place them in detention camps, that law would be (notwithstanding the "presumption" and not dependent on the eventual "finding" of the SCOTUS) an UnConstitutional law. Period. It might not be officially DEEMED (yet) to be UnConstitutional, but that wouldn't change it from being what it is: a clear violation of the Constitution.

And, once it DOES get "declared" to be UnConstitutional, it is voided (as I take it you already know) "ab initio." That is, it is voided from the moment of its signing, exactly as though it had never been passed and signed at all. That is for good reason. The retroactive effect of a ruling declaring a law to be "UnConstitutional" serves to put teeth into the fact that any law which is violative of the Constitution is no law at all.

 

[lawbuff]

And I'm in agreement with Americano that the federal SEIZURE of our private medical records doesn't get by the 4th. Or the 5th, 9th, or 10th, for that matter.

On what planet does it even begin to make logical sense that the federal government can't wiretap your phone, but it can use your medical records (your "papers") for it's own purposes and without reasonable cause? Whether one argues a medical record to be the property of the patient or the property of the doctor, what it damn sure is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.

A violation of the 4th?? I have never read any case law concerning the GW or CC clauses citing the 4th's UNreasonable seizure element. Sure the 4th deals with privacy issues, as it protects "people, not places", but....??

 

[lawbuff]

There is indeed a rule of presumed Constitutionality.

But that's not the question.

If a "law" were to get "passed" and signed by the President which compelled the Federal Government to round up Japanese-Americans and place them in detention camps, that law would be (notwithstanding the "presumption" and not dependent on the eventual "finding" of the SCOTUS) an UnConstitutional law. Period. It might not be officially DEEMED (yet) to be UnConstitutional, but that wouldn't change it from being what it is: a clear violation of the Constitution.

FDR did such, by Executive Order, but not by Congressional enactment.

And, once it DOES get "declared" to be UnConstitutional, it is voided (as I take it you already know) "ab initio." That is, it is voided from the moment of its signing, exactly as though it had never been passed and signed at all. That is for good reason. The retroactive effect of a ruling declaring a law to be "UnConstitutional" serves to put teeth into the fact that any law which is violative of the Constitution is no law at all.

Yes, retroactive applications of new common law decisions are just that, applicable to all present/non adjudicated defendants, such as under the 4th AM, the Johnson case I believe, if I am correct.

There is a 4th case I have in mind to illustrate it, a law which was state constitutional, and a valid arrest was effected, but later declared federally UNconstitutional. I'll try to remember it.

The Dunaway case overruling Morales is not the one I am thinking of specifically, but at one time is was constitutional to take a person in "for questioning", absent probable cuase, this is no longer deemed lawful.

 

[Liability]

There is indeed a rule of presumed Constitutionality.

But that's not the question.

If a "law" were to get "passed" and signed by the President which compelled the Federal Government to round up Japanese-Americans and place them in detention camps, that law would be (notwithstanding the "presumption" and not dependent on the eventual "finding" of the SCOTUS) an UnConstitutional law. Period. It might not be officially DEEMED (yet) to be UnConstitutional, but that wouldn't change it from being what it is: a clear violation of the Constitution.

FDR did such, by Executive Order, but not by Congressional enactment.

I used the FDR detention of Japanese descendants as my example for a reason.

The fact that it was not a law (but could have been) is not important. The example served its purpose all the same.

IF such a "law" got passed tomorrow (substitute Arab for Japanese): it would be (in my estimation) pretty clearly UnConstitutional. Would it be any less so just because no Court had yet made that pronouncement?

* * * *