Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[Bern80]

I really don't have to cite any case law.

Then this conversation is over. Good day.

So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case. Yeah I'm fine with that.

I'm gonna hook you up with JD I think. You two were made for each other.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case.

If that makes you feel better in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland of Reality is what Bern08 Dictates it is Instead of Actual Reality, sure, whatever.

If you ever decide you want to talk about the actual U.S. law feel free to come back.

 

[Bern80]

So long as you're willing to allow the record to show that you failed to make your case.

If that makes you feel better in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland of Reality is what Bern08 Dictates it is Instead of Actual Reality, sure, whatever.

If you ever decide you want to talk about the actual U.S. law feel free to come back.

And if you ever decide to explain why a mandate (not a tax) would be considered to be consititutional under the ability to tax under the general wellfare, I'll be waiting.

This is why I said you and JD should hook up. You both have extremely poor debate skills for starters. Look at your premise for a second. It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law. For that to be true what also must be true is the premise that all cases throughout history interpreted every law correctly. You can't possibly believe that. Which means simply citing cases that have the same opinion you do doesn't really prove much

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Bern80]

It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law.

Absolutely correct.

I apprecitate you illustrating my point and showing I am indeed correct about your poor debate skills. Much appreciated.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's basically that you are right because a court case opined the same as you did and I'm wrong because I won't show any case law.

Absolutely correct.

I apprecitate you illustrating my point and showing I am indeed correct about your poor debate skills. Much appreciated.

You are confused. Its not that I have poor debating skills, its that we aren't in the same debate. I wish to debate the actual law as it is applied in the real world - you choose to debate the law in Bern08's FantasyLand World where legal precedent is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Bern80]

Absolutely correct.

I apprecitate you illustrating my point and showing I am indeed correct about your poor debate skills. Much appreciated.

You are confused. Its not that I have poor debating skills, its that we aren't in the same debate. I wish to debate the actual law as it is applied in the real world - you choose to debate the law in Bern08's FantasyLand World where legal precedent is entirely irrelevant.

Not true, though I understand why you would want to cop to that. Go back and look at how you converse. In every single post all you do is look for the sentence you can most easily manipulate and spin rather than engaging in an actual debate.

If I am in a Fantasy Land with regard to the general wellfare clause then so were Madison and Jefferson. What they said is still in this thread somewhere. Legal precedent is not irrelevant. It is also not always the correct interpreation of the law either. You have a case on your side. I have a couple of dead Presidents who wrote the thing on mine.

Secondly in reality even the case law you did present doesn't support your position. They were about levying taxes for the general wellfare. And for the umpteenth time. MANDATING THAT PEOPLE BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A TAX. So what it has to do with the the ability to tax FOR the general wellfare is beyond me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No case law yet, huh?

 

[Bern80]

No case law yet, huh?

Nope and none will be forthcoming for the reasons already stated. You can choose to believe whatever you need to to inflate your ego. The fact remains the information is required for my argument to be true.

You can believe all you want that you have won the debate. The simple reality is you haven't because everyone else here can see you for what your are the shallow tactics you use. No rationale thinking person is going to look at the last few pages and say 'yes, Spider came up with the most intelligent, persuasive argument.

They will see what I see. A person who can't carry on an honest conversation. A person who was reduced to making irrelevant, immature demands. A person who instead of making intelligent counter arguments simply takes the most manipulatable statements and twists them into what everyone can obviously see is not true. A person who expects of others what he feels no one may expect of him (aka a hypocrite).

Like I said, I am more than happy to debate you, but I am also more than willing to let a fool stand in front of everyone trying to convince himself he isn't one.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Got legal precedent?

 

[Bern80]

Got legal precedent?

Would it cause you to spring to new heights of maturity? Doubtful. Please do keep digging. Good entertainment.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

 

[Bern80]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

Does your behavior make you proud? Maybe if you can agree to conduct yourself with the maturity level of something above the avg. junior high student.

 

[FA_Q2]

SpidermanTuba - You are being a complete ass here. You have misquoted me as well as bern SEVERAL times in this thread and continue with one liners al the while IGNORING the points that you know that you cannot reconcile with your stance. When you feel like growing up and come back and loge a real debate. As for now, is anyone else willing to debate this topic or is there no stance that this bill is constitutional at all?

 

[Bern80]

SpidermanTuba - You are being a complete ass here. You have misquoted me as well as bern SEVERAL times in this thread and continue with one liners al the while IGNORING the points that you know that you cannot reconcile with your stance. When you feel like growing up and come back and loge a real debate. As for now, is anyone else willing to debate this topic or is there no stance that this bill is constitutional at all?

I'm not sure one can. Pay attention her Spidey. Even if one accepted Spidey's broader defintion of general welfare (which claims is the Hamiltonian view) mandating that people purchase insurance and even medicare would STILL not be constitutional. Which renders the case law he points to irrelevant. What there is near unanimity on is the notion that the 'general' part of the general welfar clause. It means that the taxes the fed collects must beneifit everyone.

Hell I could even drop Madison's argument that the ability to tax for the general welfare only applies to the enumerated powers and accept Hamilton's broader view. You would STILL be wrong in calling mandating health insurance or medicare constitutional. Mandating that people BUY something is not a tax so it isn't related to this clause at all. Medicare also isn't because even Hamilton agreed that what the tax fund must be general in the sense that it benefits everyone in the U.S., but Medicare only pays for a certain group of people, same with SS.

 

[hjmick]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Because a person is not forced to buy Medicare.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

Does your behavior make you proud? Maybe if you can agree to conduct yourself with the maturity level of something above the avg. junior high student.

Is that the name of a Supreme Court case?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

why is obamacare unconstitutional but medicare is not?

because a person is not forced to buy medicare.

yes you are check your pay stub

You are charged 1.45% of your income for Medicare. Your employer pays another 1.45%.

 

[Bern80]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

Does your behavior make you proud? Maybe if you can agree to conduct yourself with the maturity level of something above the avg. junior high student.

Is that the name of a Supreme Court case?

Again none will be forth coming. That you insist on it simply shows how narrowly you must define the debate to make yourself right. That of course presumes you have defined the debate rationally, which you haven't. It assumes that the court cases you cited pertain to the discussion of whether mandating the purchase of health insurance is constitutional under the general welfare clause. It assumes you have accurately characterized the position you claim to support. However even Hamilton agreed that the purpose of any federal tax must remain general. That is the purpose for which the tax is collected must benefit all. Medicare does not benefit all. Both of those assumptions are simply not true, therefore your court citations are irrelveant.

You see everytime you post some snide immature remark like the above. I am going to reply back with something that makes a bit more sense, then you will reply back in some completely juvenile manner. The end result is your credibility will continue to go down with each and every juvenile remark you make.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again none will be forth coming.

'
OK. Then stop replying to my posts.