One more time: Explaining to Progressives why ACA Mandates were Unconstitutional

[danielpalos]

This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.

No. That is just you manufacturing a straw man argument and projecting onto others. The general welfare must not be confused with the general malfare nor the general warfare.

Dumbass.
Its a logical assumption based on your ignorance.

Still projecting with nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem), like usual for the right wing.

Says the dumbass that ignored the part of my post that proved his ignorance wrong.

It was Your misunderstanding of the term, general welfare. Your straw man argument is the general malfare.

 

[TNHarley]

This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.

No. That is just you manufacturing a straw man argument and projecting onto others. The general welfare must not be confused with the general malfare nor the general warfare.

Dumbass.
Its a logical assumption based on your ignorance.

Still projecting with nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem), like usual for the right wing.

Says the dumbass that ignored the part of my post that proved his ignorance wrong.

It was Your misunderstanding of the term, general welfare. Your straw man argument is the general malfare.

I wish you understood how much patience is required to talk to someone of your caliber.

 

[danielpalos]

This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.

No. That is just you manufacturing a straw man argument and projecting onto others. The general welfare must not be confused with the general malfare nor the general warfare.

Dumbass.
Its a logical assumption based on your ignorance.

Still projecting with nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem), like usual for the right wing.

Says the dumbass that ignored the part of my post that proved his ignorance wrong.

It was Your misunderstanding of the term, general welfare. Your straw man argument is the general malfare.

I wish you understood how much patience is required to talk to someone of your caliber.

I really do understand how right wingers tend to have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as if they had the "gospel Truth".

 

[emilynghiem]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Dear danielpalos
1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?
A. The commerce clause would apply to interstate policies, where federal funds could be distributed to states proportionally to population demands, while leaving the policies for people and states to decide democratically as long as they meet basic Constitutional protections and medical safety standards and professional licensing so no further federal regulation or bureaucracy is added unnecessarily. That way states can better manage responsibility for providing services democratically per district or statewide, and still apply for federal funds, grants clinics or subsidizes such as on prescriptions while maintaining local controls over resources and decisions. Also if you want to enforce the same Supreme Court ruling that found ACA constitutional as a tax law, then this same ruling struck it down as not being authorized under Commerce.
B. If you argue that national security also covers health and medical crises, as in the pandemic response affecting both national safety, security, economy and travel between countries, then medical service should be treated equally as military service. Where people should be required to sign up for medical training and service in order to qualify for educational and medical benefits. So enough people are recruited and trained to provide medical services, if you believe this is a public right. Right now the military is run by veterans who volunteer and receive benefits for their services; so why shouldn't students who want their education paid for be required to work in public service to qualify as veterans do? Especially for people who believe in mandatory health care, why not require mandatory medical service to provide this health care?
2. The "general welfare" clause cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which also include
A. Not depriving individuals of liberty or property without due process of laws, including rights to defend their own income and labor from "involuntary servitude"
B. Not establishing or prohibiting religious beliefs or discriminating against people by creed
C. Not disparaging rights by enumeration or rights reserved to people and states
Thus danielpalos even as you enforce your beliefs in govt duty in health care, there are equal numbers of citizens who believe this right belongs to People and States, with equal rights to govern health care choices for themselves WITHOUT depending on federal authority or mandates.
So you cannot take your Statist biased beliefs toward dependence on centralized federal govt and "establish that belief through govt" to force citizens to fund and follow that policy AGAINST their own Constitutional beliefs. Otherwise this violates the rights and laws as described in A-C above.

For policies to be Constitutionally consistent, they would have to meet ALL Constitutional laws, including religious freedom and due process.

Do you understand the problem with enforcing ONE principle (such as general welfare) with flawed legislation that ends up violating OTHER laws?

This is like Christians wanting to defend "free exercise of religion"; but if they abuse schools to impose Christian beliefs about Creation or Prayer *against the beliefs of other citizens*, then that is going TOO FAR and violating other rights.

Or Prolife people wanting to enforce laws that "save the lives of unborn children" but end up violating "DUE PROCESS" rights by imposing govt involvement in personal lives and choices BEFORE anyone has been convicted yet, thus punishing and depriving people of rights or liberty in advance.

Do you understand that laws have to meet ALL Constitutional standards, instead of infringing on some rights for political expedience and agenda to defend others "unequally."

3. In general do you understand the legal necessity for equally protecting people's rights to exercise their creeds, whether prochoice or prolife, right to life or right to health care, rights of people or states, etc.

If you understand what is necessary for govt to protect ALL these rights from infringement or obstruction by other beliefs, THIS is why I support calling for a Constitutional Convention to set up means for universal access to democratized health care and education WITHOUT imposing federal mandates or taxes unconstitutionally against amyone's beliefs or standards. But that we work out agreements on the best ways to preserve individual liberty and free choice of people, while setting up democratic cooperative health and education programs managed statewide, that can still be supported by federal grants, funding and site facilities while rewarding and empowering people to own and manage their own programs locally.

 

[danielpalos]

1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?

Our welfare clause is general not common. Where do right wingers find any powers of government for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; or, even an airforce or a space force?

 

[MadChemist]

1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?

Our welfare clause is general not common. Where do right wingers find any powers of government for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; or, even an airforce or a space force?

Wrong again.

It has been explained to you repeatedly, and shown you by what Madison stated, that you are incorrect.

Yet, because you have no integrity and need to clutch onto your big lie, you continue to make this stupid claim.

The government is responsible for defense of the nation. The air force is a no brainer. The war on terror is the same thing.

As to the rest, they may or not be constitutional. Only a challenge will show it.

emilynghiem; You've nailed it. Our resident juvenile just can't fathom that Jack Frost does not exist.

 

[MadChemist]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

 

[MadChemist]

And one more time, educating fellow progressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional.
========================================
To fellow Progressives on why ACA was unconstitutional:

1. ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties) It is disputed for this reason, that it wasn't the same bill passed through both Congress and Courts, where the Judicial branch does NOT have legislative authority to "rewrite" a public health bill as a tax bill in order to rule in favor. However contesting this issue requires a Constitutional Convention due to the clashing beliefs exceeding the jurisdiction of both federal govt and courts because political beliefs belong to the people

2. Note to Progressives: the political belief in right to health care, like right to life applying to unborn, belongs to the people. A Constitutional Amendment is required to expand the jurisdiction and duties of federal govt to apply right to health care and right to life on a national scale. Otherwise establishing beliefs of one group over others discriminates by creed and violates equal Civil Rights and Constitutional protections.

As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care. Obama, Pelosi and Roberts committed overreach and violated Constitutional protections by establishing a mandate that violated and discriminated against a whole class of people of Constitutional beliefs violated by bypassing an Amendment and abusing Congress and Courts to pass a hybrid bill that didn't follow Constitutional process and limits.

Consequently because ACA didn't meet Constitutional standards of representation, key provisions were struck down later as unconstitutional. Not just the birth control requirements, but the funding conflicts later reimbursed back to states, and the unconstitutional expenditures by Obama that failed to go through Congress.

Thus, ACA was unconstitutional on several levels: in spirit, by the letter of the law where it failed to follow the literal legislative and judicial process, and in the execution.

Sorry: You can believe it was legal but so was Slavery ruled as legal under property laws enforced by Courts. Courts were not the place to prove Slavery violated rights. The people had to establish that first, before govt and laws reflected and represented the people.

I am impressed with your level of argument.

 

[San Souci]

As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.

Right wingers are simply too disingenuous to be credible. Y'all allege anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare.

Depends on what you Reds mean by "Welfare".

 

[danielpalos]

1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?

Our welfare clause is general not common. Where do right wingers find any powers of government for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; or, even an airforce or a space force?

Wrong again.

It has been explained to you repeatedly, and shown you by what Madison stated, that you are incorrect.

Yet, because you have no integrity and need to clutch onto your big lie, you continue to make this stupid claim.

The government is responsible for defense of the nation. The air force is a no brainer. The war on terror is the same thing.

As to the rest, they may or not be constitutional. Only a challenge will show it.

emilynghiem; You've nailed it. Our resident juvenile just can't fathom that Jack Frost does not exist.

Right wingers are more disingenuous. If we can't do anything required for the general welfare, how can right wingers allege and imply that we can do everything for the common defense; when there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause in our federal Constitution like there is for the general welfare (clause).

 

[danielpalos]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.

Right wingers are simply too disingenuous to be credible. Y'all allege anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare.

Depends on what you Reds mean by "Welfare".

Any regular dictionary definition will do; Definition of WELFARE

Our welfare clause is General and must be able to provide for any given contingency in a market friendly manner that promotes and provides for the general welfare.

 

[MadChemist]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.

 

[danielpalos]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government. You need a valid argument not merely insisting you are on the Right Wing and must be Right instead of merely and demonstrably, full of fallacy and Wrong.

 

[MadChemist]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government. You need a valid argument not merely insisting you are on the Right Wing and must be Right instead of merely and demonstrably, full of fallacy and Wrong.

You've been shown where Madison says you're full of crapp.

 

[danielpalos]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government. You need a valid argument not merely insisting you are on the Right Wing and must be Right instead of merely and demonstrably, full of fallacy and Wrong.

You've been shown where Madison says you're full of crapp.

No, you haven't. You need a valid argument not merely your opinion.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[MadChemist]

ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)

How did you reach that conclusion? Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.

Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.

All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion. You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.

You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government. You need a valid argument not merely insisting you are on the Right Wing and must be Right instead of merely and demonstrably, full of fallacy and Wrong.

You've been shown where Madison says you're full of crapp.

No, you haven't. You need a valid argument not merely your opinion.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

About 100 times.

Not wasting any more time on you.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?

Our welfare clause is general not common. Where do right wingers find any powers of government for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; or, even an airforce or a space force?

Wrong again.

It has been explained to you repeatedly, and shown you by what Madison stated, that you are incorrect.

Yet, because you have no integrity and need to clutch onto your big lie, you continue to make this stupid claim.

The government is responsible for defense of the nation. The air force is a no brainer. The war on terror is the same thing.

As to the rest, they may or not be constitutional. Only a challenge will show it.

emilynghiem; You've nailed it. Our resident juvenile just can't fathom that Jack Frost does not exist.

Right wingers are more disingenuous. If we can't do anything required for the general welfare, how can right wingers allege and imply that we can do everything for the common defense; when there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause in our federal Constitution like there is for the general welfare (clause).

Well thank you danielpalos
I looked it up and FINALLY FOUND where you and fellow Liberals are getting all this general welfare business. It is actually listed in one of the 18 enumerated powers; however so are all the other listed powers referring to military and defense, that take up many more articles in the same list (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, while sharing the number 1 spot with BOTH common defense and general welfare stated together). The ratio is strongly toward govt having more business and responsibility for armed and common defense. Clearly individuals cannot represent that for the whole nation, so it makes sense Federal Govt should manage national security and defense for the US as a whole body, while the OPPOSITE is true with individual health care and educational and social policies, that individuals need to defend their own choices which cannot be "dictated the same for everyone by federal govt" (unless we each and all agree to the same policies, which clearly we do not due to cultural and religious differences Govt can defend but cannot establish, prohibit, regulate or penalize for Constitutional reasons). See below, and count how many of the 18 powers refer to military and common defense duties of govt. Very interesting and enlightening, danielpalos , thank you for pointing out both sides are in there but the ratio is clearly on the side of govt focused on external issues of security and not on micromanaging internal affairs which runs afoul by depriving individuals of liberty without due process and by not seeking the least restrictive means of meeting compelling govt duty to protect and represent public interests, including all people of all creeds, not just onesided partisan narrative or solutions seeking to define policy for everyone without taking diversity into account.

 

[danielpalos]

We can always use better infrastructure; we don't need the largest military in the world, especially when even the right wing doesn't want to pay for it with largest military in the world tax rates.