What CAN'T the federal government require you to purchase?

[Bern80]

1) bern, if you take away the penalty, there is no mandate. with a murder, however, if you take away the penalty, the crime remains, because there's a criminal code in every state specific to it. the small differences which you hope to blur away, are the ones that give the law standing from my perspective. its like me saying, "lets say murder wasnt actually killing someone, if you.."

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional. Fair?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional.

Case law to support this statement? Or did you just make it up?

 

[Bern80]

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional.

Case law to support this statement? Or did you just make it up?

I don't know spidey. Like I said before, it's your argument, not mine.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

I guess if I really am in the small minority of people who don't think government can require you to make private purchases as opposed to people like yourself who are actually defending having your freedom taken away, this country is in a rather sad state, and I am perfectly content to be in the minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

The failed OP has been correctly and ethically several times for you. The fact that you won't accept the correct answer indicates that you are being stubborn. That's all. Have a good night, Bern.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, your opinion on the constitution matters not when it comes to SCOTUS. Your interp is in the very small reactionary minority. That is not going to change one whit.

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

The failed OP has been correctly and ethically several times for you. The fact that you won't accept the correct answer indicates that you are being stubborn. That's all. Have a good night, Bern.

If you want me to accept what seems to be your argument, that congress can pretty much do and pass whatever the fuck it wants and it's up to the voters to fix it after the fact, you're right I simply won't accept that. it begs the question what fucking point if there in having a constitution? Why do congressmen and the president swear an oath to defend it, if the reality is they can make you do whatever the hell they feel like?

You are the one out of answers Starkey because you don't have the credibility to do it. You know the reality of your position and that's why you dance around answers. When you can't come up with a straight answer that's as a good an indication as any that you're on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[Contumacious]

Bern, I appreciate your passion if not your common sense for the topic. The SCOTUS will most likely find the bill just peachy, but if they don't, the ruling will be minimal and the Congress will vote some cosmetic change that will match what SCOTUS wants.

Exactly.

One of our Founding Fathers stated:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

Karl Heinrich Marx

.

 

[Vanquish]

it is noted that you couldn't actually answer the question.

The failed OP has been correctly and ethically several times for you. The fact that you won't accept the correct answer indicates that you are being stubborn. That's all. Have a good night, Bern.

If you want me to accept what seems to be your argument, that congress can pretty much do and pass whatever the fuck it wants and it's up to the voters to fix it after the fact, you're right I simply won't accept that. it begs the question what fucking point if there in having a constitution? Why do congressmen and the president swear an oath to defend it, if the reality is they can make you do whatever the hell they feel like?

You are the one out of answers Starkey because you don't have the credibility to do it. You know the reality of your position and that's why you dance around answers. When you can't come up with a straight answer that's as a good an indication as any that you're on the wrong side of the argument.

He's not out of answers...he's actually pretty smart. The discussion between the two of you has reached it's absurd point. Neither of you is going to give in...and continuing further would be like hitting your head against a brick wall.

The Commerce Clause and the Tax and Spend powers basically say Congress can do this. You wont accept that. Fine, but at least accept that there's an alternative to your personal perspective.

 

[antagon]

1) bern, if you take away the penalty, there is no mandate. with a murder, however, if you take away the penalty, the crime remains, because there's a criminal code in every state specific to it. the small differences which you hope to blur away, are the ones that give the law standing from my perspective. its like me saying, "lets say murder wasnt actually killing someone, if you.."

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional. Fair?

bern, the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set. again, slightly different, but a slight difference that makes the statement distinct from yours. read it again..

the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set.

uno mas..

the mandate is the penalty. the mandate is constitutional. the penalty is constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point, Bern, is that you and I can have opinions about the Constitution. The point is not that you have correctly interpreted the Constitution when it its clear you are out of step with the opinion of the COFTUS and SCOTUS. To insist that the world is out of step rather than re-examine your position indicates your personal arrogance and hubris.

 

[antagon]

that's about the sum of it, starkey. furthermore, by contending there's no point in having a constitution in light of the way it is constructed, laughs in the face of the founders conclusion that rep democracy could form a trust between citizens and government, and that voting rights suffice to maintain that trust.

 

[Bern80]

1) bern, if you take away the penalty, there is no mandate. with a murder, however, if you take away the penalty, the crime remains, because there's a criminal code in every state specific to it. the small differences which you hope to blur away, are the ones that give the law standing from my perspective. its like me saying, "lets say murder wasnt actually killing someone, if you.."

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional. Fair?

bern, the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set. again, slightly different, but a slight difference that makes the statement distinct from yours. read it again..

the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set.

uno mas..

the mandate is the penalty. the mandate is constitutional. the penalty is constitutional.

Then what is requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? Because I'm fairly certain that's what Obama said the mandate is.

 

[Bern80]

The point, Bern, is that you and I can have opinions about the Constitution. The point is not that you have correctly interpreted the Constitution when it its clear you are out of step with the opinion of the COFTUS and SCOTUS. To insist that the world is out of step rather than re-examine your position indicates your personal arrogance and hubris.

What opinion of the SCOTUS has EVER backed up the notion that government can REQUIRE every single person to make private purchases?

 

[antagon]

So at the very least my characterization of your opinion is correct. What makes mandates constitutional is dependent on the penalty for violating them and not whether or not the mandate itself is constitutional. Fair?

bern, the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set. again, slightly different, but a slight difference that makes the statement distinct from yours. read it again..

the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set.

uno mas..

the mandate is the penalty. the mandate is constitutional. the penalty is constitutional.

Then what is requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? Because I'm fairly certain that's what Obama said the mandate is.

NOTHING, bern. no requirement. full circle to semantics being at the center of your trouble with understanding this issue.

there is a capped, 2.5% addition to the rate of income tax for private citizens without specified coverage. buy coverage. pay the rate. make a choice.

 

[Vanquish]

Why are you even humoring Bern at this point. He wont concede...he wont listen...he wont go research...he's only going to dig in his heels.

Stop responding to him. It's a waste.

 

[Contumacious]

The point, Bern, is that you and I can have opinions about the Constitution. The point is not that you have correctly interpreted the Constitution when it its clear you are out of step with the opinion of the COFTUS and SCOTUS. To insist that the world is out of step rather than re-examine your position indicates your personal arrogance and hubris.

What opinion of the SCOTUS has EVER backed up the notion that government can REQUIRE every single person to make private purchases?

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

All 4 Conservative Judges dissented:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

[183] MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "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 Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. . And, if valid as so employed, this 'tax and credit' device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of [301 U.S. 548, 617] state power and generally to control state administration of state laws. "

.

 

[Bern80]

bern, the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set. again, slightly different, but a slight difference that makes the statement distinct from yours. read it again..

the mandate is the penalty, so if the penalty is constitutional, then you're set.

uno mas..

the mandate is the penalty. the mandate is constitutional. the penalty is constitutional.

Then what is requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? Because I'm fairly certain that's what Obama said the mandate is.

NOTHING, bern. no requirement. full circle to semantics being at the center of your trouble with understanding this issue.

there is a capped, 2.5% addition to the rate of income tax for private citizens without specified coverage. buy coverage. pay the rate. make a choice.

Have you considered then that it YOU that is having to play semantics in order to justify this? Cause it's plain as day to me and everyone else including the president that everyone must purchase health insurance and the penalty for not doing so is a tax. You can play the game all you want. It does not change the fact that what you are really saying is that government can make you purchase whatever they feel like making you purchase as long they collect a tax if you don't.

 

[Bern80]

The point, Bern, is that you and I can have opinions about the Constitution. The point is not that you have correctly interpreted the Constitution when it its clear you are out of step with the opinion of the COFTUS and SCOTUS. To insist that the world is out of step rather than re-examine your position indicates your personal arrogance and hubris.

What opinion of the SCOTUS has EVER backed up the notion that government can REQUIRE every single person to make private purchases?

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

All 4 Conservative Judges dissented:


MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER joins in this opinion.

[183] MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, dissenting.

[184] I think that the objections to the challenged enactment expressed in the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND are well taken. I am also of opinion that, in principle and as applied to bring about and to gain control over state unemployment compensation, the statutory scheme is repugnant to the Tenth Amendment: "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 Constitution grants to the United States no power to pay unemployed persons or to require the States to enact laws or to raise or disburse money for that purpose. The provisions in question, if not amounting to coercion in a legal sense, are manifestly designed and intended directly to affect state action in the respects specified. . And, if valid as so employed, this 'tax and credit' device may be made effective to enable federal authorities to induce, if not indeed to compel, state enactments for any purpose within the realm of [301 U.S. 548, 617] state power and generally to control state administration of state laws. "

.

Can you clarify where you're going with this example? From what I can tell the dissenting opinion is in regards to what the tax is being used for. I don't see how it indicates one way or the other whether government can make people purchase things. I think it might lend an argument that such a mandate could be allowed on a state level as long as the state's constitution does not prohibit it.

 

[antagon]

Why are you even humoring Bern at this point. He wont concede...he wont listen...he wont go research...he's only going to dig in his heels.

Stop responding to him. It's a waste.

i know. its a hobby now losing its amusement.

 

[Bern80]

Why are you even humoring Bern at this point. He wont concede...he wont listen...he wont go research...he's only going to dig in his heels.

Stop responding to him. It's a waste.

Why exaclty is it that you make requirments of me that you won't require of yourself? Again the above is at the very least the pot calling the kettle black. In laymens terms, you're a hypocrite.