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

[sparky]

Please explain to us why you believe the Supreme Court would unanimously decree that government for the first time ever requiring citizens to make a private purchase would be constitutional.

because it's not the first time

~S~

 

[editec]

In theory I have no problem with mandatory insurance.

In practice, I suspect this plan is going to be a mess.

We'll see, of course, how it plays out in the next couple years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law is constitutional, it is built on free market principles of relying on private business to compete and keep down prices, and it is gaining support among the citizens. I agree that it is going to messy, but it will be worked out.

What will be interesting is to see what Obama goes after next.

 

[Bern80]

Please explain to us why you believe the Supreme Court would unanimously decree that government for the first time ever requiring citizens to make a private purchase would be constitutional.

because it's not the first time

~S~

ooookaaay. Except I can't think of anything else the federal government is making me pay a private business for. What would I be missing?

 

[Bern80]

Some of you believe that it is unconstitutional. You are wrong until the Supreme Court says you are right. Unfortunately statute and case law will force even the conservative justices into a 9-0 vote to uphold the health insurance law. I will remind you all of this when that happens.

This is the same weak argument that spidey tried to use. It is your contention that whether something is truly constitutional is not dependent on whether the actual Constitution says it is but how a judge interprets it? You understand that that would mean anything and everything is constitutional until the court says otherwise, right? That doesn't seem a bit backwards to you?

Please explain to us why you believe the Supreme Court would unanimously decree that government for the first time ever requiring citizens to make a private purchase would be constitutional.

Already answered above. Find that and respond, please.

So your answer is the supreme court says what is constitutional, not the constitution itself? Final answer?

And has anyone noticed that in 5 pages of this thread so far that no one really seems to want to answer the original question. There's been one legitimate answer so far. Doesn't anyone else think maybe we should be thinking about what government should be allowed to make us do? My rationale is if you think this is legally allowable, how are you going to be able make a legal case for something you don't agree with? What if government mandates we can all only buy Prius' or face an exhorbitant tax? If making people by health insurance is legal, surely that is as well or whatever else government thinks is best for us. Stop trying to defend this ridiculous legislation and start looking at the big picture. The government is taking away your freedom and not only do you not see you are actually defending it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the same weak argument that spidey tried to use. It is your contention that whether something is truly constitutional is not dependent on whether the actual Constitution says it is but how a judge interprets it? You understand that that would mean anything and everything is constitutional until the court says otherwise, right? That doesn't seem a bit backwards to you?

Please explain to us why you believe the Supreme Court would unanimously decree that government for the first time ever requiring citizens to make a private purchase would be constitutional.

Already answered above. Find that and respond, please.

So your answer is the supreme court says what is constitutional, not the constitution itself? Final answer?

You don't say what is constitutional, bern. Only the Supreme Court does. End of story.

 

[Bern80]

Already answered above. Find that and respond, please.

So your answer is the supreme court says what is constitutional, not the constitution itself? Final answer?

You don't say what is constitutional, bern. Only the Supreme Court does. End of story.

Dodging questions shows the flimsiness of your position. Nothing shows a poor argument better than the inability to answer a direct question.

Actually the Constitution says what is constitutional. It was written to limit the power of the federal government. The framers were not idiots. They knew it would be far easier to to write a document GRANTING POWERS to the federal government rather than try to imagine every possible thing government might try to do and outlaw it.

The Supreme Court on the other hand is made up of people with political agendas, like it or not, and has been ever since FDR and was blatantly obvious with Sotomayor. They are the final OPINION (you knew that is what the SC actually renders rigth) on what is constitutional and you can't be as obtsuely naive as spidey as to think they always get it right.

On top of that you seem to ignore the ridiculous ramifications of such an interpretation. Again would that not mean everything is constitutinal until the SC says otherwise?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, no one is dodging anything. You can believe whatever you want, that's your right as an American, and a number of us on the Board paid a price for you to do just that. So go for it. But it is the Supreme Court, not you, that decides what is constitutional. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is the truth.

 

[chanel]

There are people who believe that the internet is a right. Coming soon,,,free internet for all! Well not exactly free - only for those that make less than 88K.." "But its for the children!"

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There are people who believe that the internet is a right. Coming soon,,,free internet for all! Well not exactly free - only for those that make less than 88K.." "But its for the children!"

Why do you hate poor kids?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chanel is a school teacher. Don't think she is picking on poor kids. I bet on some days she hates everybody's kids.

 

[Maple]

I still have yet to receive a reasonable answer to this in light of the passage of the health care bill.

One person (spiderman) tried to weasel it into be constitutional under the 16th ammendment 'rationalizing' that since government is granted the power to tax income they can make requirements of the peope as long as they levy an income tax penalty for non-compliance. That of course is rather ludicrous.

The next requirement will be to purchase a treadmill or a gym membership, to keep everyone in shape so as not to go to the doctor ever again.

Already, all fast food restaurants are required to list calorie counts on all menu items across the country-- as if that is going to keep everyone from eating that SUPER-SIZED Big Mac, French Fries, Shake and apple pie. Your health care dollars at work for you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Chanel is a school teacher.

And they can't hate poor kids?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One person (spiderman) tried to weasel it into be constitutional under the 16th ammendment 'rationalizing' that since government is granted the power to tax income they can make requirements of the peope as long as they levy an income tax penalty for non-compliance. That of course is rather ludicrous.

I'm not rationalizing anything. The 16th amendment says Congress can tax income.

PERIOD

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chanel is a school teacher.

And they can't hate poor kids?

Come on, Spidey, keep my comment in context. I wrote, "Chanel is a school teacher. Don't think she is picking on poor kids. I bet on some days she hates everybody's kids."

 

[chanel]

I do not disriminate based on socioeconomic status when it comes to hating children, And I teach very few "childen" Most of my kids are over 18 and several are parents - some lovable and some hatable. Just like the rest of the world.. Oh and even the "poor" ones have access to porn. Don't you be worryin bout dat spidey. Lol

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I do not disriminate based on socioeconomic status when it comes to hating children, And I teach very few "childen" Most of my kids are over 18 and several are parents - some lovable and some hatable. Just like the rest of the world.. Oh and even the "poor" ones have access to porn. Don't you be worryin bout dat spidey. Lol

Right, because after all, porn is all that poor people would want with the internet.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, no one is dodging anything. You can believe whatever you want, that's your right as an American, and a number of us on the Board paid a price for you to do just that. So go for it. But it is the Supreme Court, not you, that decides what is constitutional. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is the truth.

I never said I get to decide what is constitutional. I quite clearly stated the Constitution tells us what is constitutional. I of course can have an opinion whether something is or is not constitutional based on what the document says and what I know about those that wrote it. I can have an opinion just as the supreme court has an OPINION on the matter. The difference here is I believe in absolute truth and you apparently don't. I can differentiate between what IS constitutional and what the supreme court OPINES is constitutional. You apparently can not.

And yes your are dodging as you have failed to confront the ramifications of your position:

That such a stance renders any and all legislation made by congress constitutional until someone challenges it.

That the supreme court is always correct when it decides whether something is constitutional. Problems really abound from that one such as the convenience of circular logic and the fact that every SC decision would have to be unanimous for it to be true.

It would mean that the constitution is a living document that would need to be changed based on the rulings of the Supreme Court which is not how the document is supposed to be lawfully modified. If you want an extreme example it would mean if the Supreme Court decided woman didn't have the right to vote, disallowing women from voting would not be constitutional based on your ridiculous argument that the Supreme Court said so.

And last but not least the question of the thread which no one seems to be able to come up with a reasonable answer for.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dude are you still talking? You're too stupid to understand constitutional law. Get over it. Move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, no one is dodging anything. You can believe whatever you want, that's your right as an American, and a number of us on the Board paid a price for you to do just that. So go for it. But it is the Supreme Court, not you, that decides what is constitutional. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is the truth.

I never said I get to decide what is constitutional. I quite clearly stated the Constitution tells us what is constitutional. I of course can have an opinion whether something is or is not constitutional based on what the document says and what I know about those that wrote it. I can have an opinion just as the supreme court has an OPINION on the matter. The difference here is I believe in absolute truth and you apparently don't. I can differentiate between what IS constitutional and what the supreme court OPINES is constitutional. You apparently can not.

And yes your are dodging as you have failed to confront the ramifications of your position:

That such a stance renders any and all legislation made by congress constitutional until someone challenges it.

That the supreme court is always correct when it decides whether something is constitutional. Problems really abound from that one such as the convenience of circular logic and the fact that every SC decision would have to be unanimous for it to be true.

It would mean that the constitution is a living document that would need to be changed based on the rulings of the Supreme Court which is not how the document is supposed to be lawfully modified. If you want an extreme example it would mean if the Supreme Court decided woman didn't have the right to vote, disallowing women from voting would not be constitutional based on your ridiculous argument that the Supreme Court said so.

And last but not least the question of the thread which no one seems to be able to come up with a reasonable answer for.

Bern, you can write all you want, argue all you want, pontificate all you want.

But the SCOTUS, not you, decides what is constitutional. I know that is a shocker, but we think it is time for you to be told the truth. We will wait awhile on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.