Looks like it may pass--40 states plan to file legal action against it.

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
"As the Congress once again rallies to pass healthcare reform legislation, momentum is growing in many states to pass laws to block the changes -- a move that could lead to a legal battle over states' sovereignty."

States take aim to block healthcare plan | Reuters

This healthcare bill even though it's likely it will pass--is going to get a lot uglier with approximately 40 states planning to file legal action against the federal government over the passage of this bill.

The Constitutional scholars will be coming out of the woodwork on this one--& we can eventually expect to see it in front of the U.S. Supreme court--in a "real" showdown between States rights & the Federal Government. In my opinion it's about time this happened.

Many of you on this board know more about the 10th admendment to the constitution--than I--so am looking for your opinions on this?

Your thoughts?
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
Way to waste more tax dollars.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,625
Reaction score
10,677
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The 10th is simple. If the Federal Government has no Authority on a subject then it devolves to the States, if the States in their Constitutions have no authority on it, it reverts to the people.

Health Care is only a Federal issue in regards regulations for across State lines. The Federal Government has no authority to force Americans to buy Health care and have no authority to fine people that do not. Since Health care can not be sold across State lines the Federal Government has no authority in regards health care except to say it can or can not be sold across State lines.
 

MajikMyst

Honorary Non-member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
587
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Location
Seattle, Wa.
The 10th is simple. If the Federal Government has no Authority on a subject then it devolves to the States, if the States in their Constitutions have no authority on it, it reverts to the people.

Health Care is only a Federal issue in regards regulations for across State lines. The Federal Government has no authority to force Americans to buy Health care and have no authority to fine people that do not. Since Health care can not be sold across State lines the Federal Government has no authority in regards health care except to say it can or can not be sold across State lines.

Yes the 10th is simple.. But you right wingers have yet to make a valid argument against the government providing health care...

Fundementally, the government is charged with the safty and well being of the people it governs.. Healthcare most certianly falls into that responsiblility..

We have a military to keep us safe.. To protect our way of life and our freedoms.. I see no reason why we can't have healthcare to protect us from sickness and allow us to live healthier..

So how bout it?? Make the arguement.. Explain to me why health care would not fall into the governments responsibility?? How would the 10th amendment prevent providing health care and not a military??

:eusa_whistle:

Consider this.. Education would be a better arguement.. But we have public schools and eveeryone thinks they are a good thing.. Well.. Except you neotards.. You all seem to love promoting ignorance..
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
The 10th is simple. If the Federal Government has no Authority on a subject then it devolves to the States, if the States in their Constitutions have no authority on it, it reverts to the people.

Health Care is only a Federal issue in regards regulations for across State lines. The Federal Government has no authority to force Americans to buy Health care and have no authority to fine people that do not. Since Health care can not be sold across State lines the Federal Government has no authority in regards health care except to say it can or can not be sold across State lines.

Yes the 10th is simple.. But you right wingers have yet to make a valid argument against the government providing health care...

Fundementally, the government is charged with the safty and well being of the people it governs.. Healthcare most certianly falls into that responsiblility..

We have a military to keep us safe.. To protect our way of life and our freedoms.. I see no reason why we can't have healthcare to protect us from sickness and allow us to live healthier..

So how bout it?? Make the arguement.. Explain to me why health care would not fall into the governments responsibility?? How would the 10th amendment prevent providing health care and not a military??

:eusa_whistle:

Consider this.. Education would be a better arguement.. But we have public schools and eveeryone thinks they are a good thing.. Well.. Except you neotards.. You all seem to love promoting ignorance..

The federal government is required to fund a military. That is within the constitution. There is nothing in said document about the government providing health care.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,625
Reaction score
10,677
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The 10th is simple. If the Federal Government has no Authority on a subject then it devolves to the States, if the States in their Constitutions have no authority on it, it reverts to the people.

Health Care is only a Federal issue in regards regulations for across State lines. The Federal Government has no authority to force Americans to buy Health care and have no authority to fine people that do not. Since Health care can not be sold across State lines the Federal Government has no authority in regards health care except to say it can or can not be sold across State lines.

Yes the 10th is simple.. But you right wingers have yet to make a valid argument against the government providing health care...

Fundementally, the government is charged with the safty and well being of the people it governs.. Healthcare most certianly falls into that responsiblility..

We have a military to keep us safe.. To protect our way of life and our freedoms.. I see no reason why we can't have healthcare to protect us from sickness and allow us to live healthier..

So how bout it?? Make the arguement.. Explain to me why health care would not fall into the governments responsibility?? How would the 10th amendment prevent providing health care and not a military??

:eusa_whistle:

Consider this.. Education would be a better arguement.. But we have public schools and eveeryone thinks they are a good thing.. Well.. Except you neotards.. You all seem to love promoting ignorance..

The federal government is required to fund a military. That is within the constitution. There is nothing in said document about the government providing health care.

Nor, again, does the Federal Government have the authority or enumerated power to FORCE it's citizens to buy Health Care. Nor to fine them when they do not.

In fact the Federal Government has no authority over the welfare of individual citizens at all. It is and was intended to be a mechanism to ensure the several States all got along and a control on one or more States infringing on the others.

Dumb ass can not cite a single enumerated power in section 8 Article I that grants to the Federal Government the ability to force health care on the citizenry nor to fine them if they do not buy said health care.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
"As the Congress once again rallies to pass healthcare reform legislation, momentum is growing in many states to pass laws to block the changes -- a move that could lead to a legal battle over states' sovereignty."

States take aim to block healthcare plan | Reuters

This healthcare bill even though it's likely it will pass--is going to get a lot uglier with approximately 40 states planning to file legal action against the federal government over the passage of this bill.

The Constitutional scholars will be coming out of the woodwork on this one--& we can eventually expect to see it in front of the U.S. Supreme court--in a "real" showdown between States rights & the Federal Government. In my opinion it's about time this happened.

Many of you on this board know more about the 10th admendment to the constitution--than I--so am looking for your opinions on this?

Your thoughts?

It's very difficult to stop the fed. On the other hand, remember the case of eminent domain in New Jersey? The Supreme Court rules in favor of a municipality over the rights of property owner for commercial enterprise? States then changed their laws tightening up eminent domain rules. Perhaps the same could happen here? Long shot, but better than the alternatives of either side.
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
The 10th is simple. If the Federal Government has no Authority on a subject then it devolves to the States, if the States in their Constitutions have no authority on it, it reverts to the people.

Health Care is only a Federal issue in regards regulations for across State lines. The Federal Government has no authority to force Americans to buy Health care and have no authority to fine people that do not. Since Health care can not be sold across State lines the Federal Government has no authority in regards health care except to say it can or can not be sold across State lines.

Yes the 10th is simple.. But you right wingers have yet to make a valid argument against the government providing health care...

Fundementally, the government is charged with the safty and well being of the people it governs.. Healthcare most certianly falls into that responsiblility..
We have a military to keep us safe.. To protect our way of life and our freedoms.. I see no reason why we can't have healthcare to protect us from sickness and allow us to live healthier..

So how bout it?? Make the arguement.. Explain to me why health care would not fall into the governments responsibility?? How would the 10th amendment prevent providing health care and not a military??

:eusa_whistle:

Consider this.. Education would be a better arguement.. But we have public schools and eveeryone thinks they are a good thing.. Well.. Except you neotards.. You all seem to love promoting ignorance..


Schools are a State run thingy. University of Minnesota. Indiana University. Universtiy of Miami. Well, Miami is more of a minor league Football Club that also teaches classes, but you get the point.

By your argument, if the Federal government is compelled to provide healthcare because people need it, why not shelter, clothing, food and drink? I use food far more often than medical care. Why doesn't the government provide that for me?

What about my clothing? In winter, I would die without clothes. If not die, i would certainly be arrested. My access to clients offices might be affected also. I assume the success rate would drop.

Under our form of government, providing an environment where all of life's good things can flouish is the Governments responsibility. That is why we are a small chunk of the world's population and an huge chunk of the world's market.

This bill and most of what the Dems dream of passing is the result of the pessimistic view that there will never be enough to go around. This bill and more like it will assure that their dream will come true.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,384
Reaction score
35,226
Points
2,220
Are all Libruls wards of the state? Is that the answer? Is that why it's so easy for them to surrender time and again?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top