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

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

REPLY to comment by Darrell Thomas "At minimum the SCOTUS should have sent it back to the House. Instead, acknowledging it was improperly passed, they decided to do nothing about it. Lifetime appointment was to separate the Courts from political motivation; however, politics seem to constantly be considered."

==========

What I learned about the political differences is it isn't always a choice that people can change if that is how their brains or spiritual purpose is designed. [Note: Even studies have shown a physical difference between brains of Conservative thinkers and Liberals.]

The two schools of thought:
(a) that govt is either SUPPOSED to serve as a central authority for providing for the public welfare and managing equal access for everyone;
(b) or that PEOPLE are supposed to manage our own resources democratically, reserved first to people and then to states, and agree only to assign specific duties to federal govt by limited rules, and not abuse either courts or legislation or other govt process to impose or regulate more than what was agreed to in writing.

We have always had this split, similar to Protestant that believes people have direct authority through Christ to live by the laws and run our own churches VS. Catholic that only recognize the central authority as in charge of official church policy. These beliefs are a choice for people to follow, but internally people cannot be forced to change what they believe and respond to. Likewise, with political beliefs, instead of attacking or rejecting people for their choices, why not recognize the different groups and let them govern themselves without conflict or imposition on each other?

Why not treat Parties equally as Political Religions and Religious Organizations and not allow such beliefs to be imposed through govt to discriminate or infringe on equal beliefs of other groups.

We never have addressed this issue of Political Beliefs but have used the given system to vote one position over others by majority.

Now we have outgrown that system and no longer consent to have half the nation ruled by the party beliefs of the other. The last two elections have shown that people do not consent to the beliefs of the other school. I hope this means we are ready for a Constitutional Convention to reach a consensus on how to manage the two main branches of political uses of govt, and separate them so people can fund and follow the policies they believe in while allowing others to exercise their equal freedom.

We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to abuse majority rule in Congress or judicial rule in Courts to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation by lobbying and coercion. When we start treating Parties with the same respect as Religious groups, then we might fulfill our Constitutional promises of equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed.

 

[pknopp]

I thought it was also. We lost the argument. It's why the argument that I need to care about the Supreme Court holds no sway any longer where it's concerning who I vote for.

 

[Votto]

The Constitution? When have the democrats been held to the Constitution?

When have they shown in interest in the Constitution other than using it to get what they want?

Moreover, what court or judge has held them to it?

None.

We live in a post Constitutional era, and as such, you will get no response from the Left.

Hell, FDR not only locked up innocent Japanese Americans, a clear violation of the Constitution agreed by both Left and Right but nothing was done to stop him. And still today he is hailed as one of the greatest US Presidents of all time.

LMAO!

Besides, soon the loons will take over health care altogether and we will wind up with what the VA has, along with its never ending scandals that never are addressed.

Yea, the government will save lots of money after that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Exactly Votto
So if we don't agree to follow the same rules,
what rules are we following anyway?

Same with changing the rules of the election
to mass mailin ballots that not all people and states
agreed to use in that volume that couldn't be verified
accurately as notarized absentee ballots

when we don't agree to the same rules, terms or conditions
contracts become void

You cannot simply dictate what you believe you agreed to
and assume others are held binding

We need to have a Convention and go over the rules and contracts.
If we do not agree, we need to separate into groups and administrations
that agree to different rules where they can still achieve their objectives within
that group that agrees to that process including paying for those programs.

Only the places where all people and states AGREE can be established
as public laws and govt where we all consent to as mandatory for everyone.

We already agree to keep church groups separate and let their members
run them by their own inhouse rules and contributions.

When we get organized and do the same for Parties,
then we can better distinguish what is agreed on per state,
per party or nationally. And not impose the beliefs and standards
of one group on another with conflicting beliefs.

We will figure this out by trial and error.
As soon as we realize that imposing beliefs through govt
is not going to be complied with. That goes against human nature
and is the reason for the First Amendment.

Liberals who haven't figured out the Constitution applies
to them may learn by experience why the rules were written
that way to prevent these problems caused by govt overreach
and imposing on individual rights and beliefs that belong to people.

 

[Pete7469]

LOL.....

You're "educating" regressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional?

No you're not. You're trying to teach parrots new words but you're not giving them free crackers.

 

[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.

 

[danielpalos]

Note to Progressives: the political belief in right to health care, like right to life applying to unborn, belongs to the people.

Current plans to vaccinate the People seems to gainsay your contention and it is a form of healthcare for the People.

 

[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.

 

[DGS49]

The final stumbling block in educating Leftists on the Constitutional deficiencies of ACA is almost always the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 of Article I.

To a man, they believe that this gives Congress the power to do anything that Congress deems to promote the "general welfare" of the country. It will not do to point out that if this were the import of those words, then NOTHING Congress does could EVER be deemed unconstitutional. Because why would they do anything if not to promote the "general welfare."

I've tried to illustrate the point by pointing out that if THEIR reading were correct, it would not have been necessary for CJ Roberts to deem the penalty in ACA a "tax" in order to make the law pass Constitutional muster. Indeed, there would have been no issue at all.

I've given up.

 

[danielpalos]

To a man, they believe that this gives Congress the power to do anything that Congress deems to promote the "general welfare" of the country.

Right wingers are worse. They proclaim that the common defense clause can do what the general welfare clause cannot.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare precludes the same for the general Badfare, the general Malfare and even the general Warfare.

 

[DGS49]

Try to focus. We are talking about the "general welfare" clause.

 

[Indeependent]

What prompted the ACA?
Fuckbag GW causing massive unemployment.
Companies used to be able to purchase Health Care for their employees at reasonable prices.
Thanks , GW!

 

[danielpalos]

Try to focus. We are talking about the "general welfare" clause.

Our welfare clause is General and must be able to promote and provide for any contingency for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

What prompted the ACA?
Fuckbag GW causing massive unemployment.
Companies used to be able to purchase Health Care for their employees at reasonable prices.
Thanks , GW!

A commission to find out why it is so expensive and discover better solutions at lower cost?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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.
Of course, that isnt correct. The general welfare can only be applied through other enumerated powers. It even says that at the end
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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. The general welfare is not the general malfare. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[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.