- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
The fine aspect is where they invite a Supreme Court review. A direct financial burden for an unjust law will surely meet a higher standard for having that review.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The fine aspect is where they invite a Supreme Court review. A direct financial burden for an unjust law will surely meet a higher standard for having that review.
Ame®icano;1653880 said:CNSNews.com: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?
CNSNews.com: Yes, yes I am.
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
You can put this on the record, said Elshami. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.
Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?
Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,
You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.
My vote goes with the latter
Does it matter who the CNS is? Would you like to get the answer if you ask the same question?
Would you like to know the answer to this question? Do you know the answer?
Ame®icano;1653374 said:Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?
Getting into Commerce Clause law, the bounds of it, and how it has been used over the decades, is an interesting topic. Let me just say here that, in theory, Congress can't pass a law under its powers via the Commerce Clause if that law is unconstitutional. The question from a practical standpoint is whether you can get a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) to say it is unconstitutional.
You mention a 4th amendment violation, for example. That's an interesting opinion to discuss, but I think it is unlikely a court would agree with you, and if they don't then whether you think it violates the 4th amendment isn't going to have much practical effect.
So it's not just a matter of what you or I might think about the Constitutionality of aspects of proposed health care legislation, it comes down to what the courts think about it. Think they're going to strike it down?
The counter to the 10th amendment argument is easy. The 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The answer that people will provide to the argument that the 10th Amendment argument is that the Constitution DOES delegate the power to regulate health care to Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. After all, the 10th Amendment on its face deals with powers NOT delegated.
I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.
It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.
It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.
How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.
It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.
How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.
Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.
Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you
How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.
Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.
Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you
Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.
Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.
"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.
How do you figure? Particularly given the 9th and 10th amendments which tell us just the opposite.
Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.
Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you
Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.
Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.
"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.
Simple.
If it is unconstitutional it will be declared as such. If the bill passes and is not challenged it becomes law. You can sit and whine about its constitutionality all you like but it is the courts that decide.
Your wingnut interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments have not held up in courts and in this great country, it is the courts who get to decide, not you
Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.
Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.
"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.
Murph...I am not calling YOU a wing-nut
If you think the 9th and 10th amendment apply, then prove it in a court of law not on a message board.
Ame®icano;1654266 said:Pointing your finger and yelling "Wingnut!" doesn't change the 9th or 10th amendments. They're written in ENGLISH. We're not translating them from Greek to Latin and back to English again. They don't require any arcane knowledge of Constitutional law. We don't have to worry about what the definition of "is" is.
The Constitution means what it says.
Just because you can find some socialist fuck on the Supreme Court to see it your way doesn't negate the fact that the U.S. Constitution says what it says.
"There's nothing new under the sun". And this isn't the first time Democrats have demanded that we not believe our lying eyes.
Murph...I am not calling YOU a wing-nut
If you think the 9th and 10th amendment apply, then prove it in a court of law not on a message board.
Bill is not out yet, they are still writing it behind closed doors.
If or when Congress pass the bill, depending whats in the bill, it may go to the "court of law". Until then we are discussing it here.
Name one reason why we shouldn't.
Leave it to a far left (dishonestly named) leftwinger like fauxright[sic]wanker to come up with that retarded formulation.Ame®icano;1653880 said:Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?
Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,
You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.
My vote goes with the latter
Does it matter who the CNS is? Would you like to get the answer if you ask the same question?
Would you like to know the answer to this question? Do you know the answer?
Of course I know the answer.
It is Constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional.
Now your problem is one of legal precident. With the US involved in programs such as Medicare and Social Security for over 70 years, all the legal precident says "Yes it is Constitutional" and "Yes that is a stupid question"
Ame®icano;1653374 said:Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?
Getting into Commerce Clause law, the bounds of it, and how it has been used over the decades, is an interesting topic. Let me just say here that, in theory, Congress can't pass a law under its powers via the Commerce Clause if that law is unconstitutional. The question from a practical standpoint is whether you can get a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) to say it is unconstitutional.
You mention a 4th amendment violation, for example. That's an interesting opinion to discuss, but I think it is unlikely a court would agree with you, and if they don't then whether you think it violates the 4th amendment isn't going to have much practical effect.
So it's not just a matter of what you or I might think about the Constitutionality of aspects of proposed health care legislation, it comes down to what the courts think about it. Think they're going to strike it down?
The counter to the 10th amendment argument is easy. The 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The answer that people will provide to the argument that the 10th Amendment argument is that the Constitution DOES delegate the power to regulate health care to Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. After all, the 10th Amendment on its face deals with powers NOT delegated.
I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Ame®icano;1654323 said:What this means is that if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. If it's not specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the States and/or We The People can do it. How hard is to understand this?
For the edification of leftards who are similarly misinformed, ignorant and stupid, an UnConstitutional Act isn't magically "Constitutional" until and unless some old guys in black dresses "declare" it to be otherwise. It is what it is. If it is Unconstitutional, formal recognition of that is very helpful. But it doesn't BECOME UnConstitutional only when the SCOTUS so declares. Its UnConstitutionality precedes the "discovery" of such UnConstitutionality by the SCOTUS which makes that "declaration."
For the edification of leftards who are similarly misinformed, ignorant and stupid, an UnConstitutional Act isn't magically "Constitutional" until and unless some old guys in black dresses "declare" it to be otherwise. It is what it is. If it is Unconstitutional, formal recognition of that is very helpful. But it doesn't BECOME UnConstitutional only when the SCOTUS so declares. Its UnConstitutionality precedes the "discovery" of such UnConstitutionality by the SCOTUS which makes that "declaration."
There is a rule of not only Congressional, but state statutory construction, that a law enacted is "presumed constitutional". The SC will, in all avoidance, decide the constitutionality as a last resort.
SS has been held Constitutional under the General Welfare clause.
I see what you are saying, but as far as the legislative purpose behind an act, whether it is actually perceived that way by Congress in thier minds, as we know how politicians are, two faced at times, it is constitutionally enacted.
And I'm in agreement with Americano that the federal SEIZURE of our private medical records doesn't get by the 4th. Or the 5th, 9th, or 10th, for that matter.
On what planet does it even begin to make logical sense that the federal government can't wiretap your phone, but it can use your medical records (your "papers") for it's own purposes and without reasonable cause? Whether one argues a medical record to be the property of the patient or the property of the doctor, what it damn sure is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.
There is indeed a rule of presumed Constitutionality.
But that's not the question.
If a "law" were to get "passed" and signed by the President which compelled the Federal Government to round up Japanese-Americans and place them in detention camps, that law would be (notwithstanding the "presumption" and not dependent on the eventual "finding" of the SCOTUS) an UnConstitutional law. Period. It might not be officially DEEMED (yet) to be UnConstitutional, but that wouldn't change it from being what it is: a clear violation of the Constitution.
And, once it DOES get "declared" to be UnConstitutional, it is voided (as I take it you already know) "ab initio." That is, it is voided from the moment of its signing, exactly as though it had never been passed and signed at all. That is for good reason. The retroactive effect of a ruling declaring a law to be "UnConstitutional" serves to put teeth into the fact that any law which is violative of the Constitution is no law at all.
There is indeed a rule of presumed Constitutionality.
But that's not the question.
If a "law" were to get "passed" and signed by the President which compelled the Federal Government to round up Japanese-Americans and place them in detention camps, that law would be (notwithstanding the "presumption" and not dependent on the eventual "finding" of the SCOTUS) an UnConstitutional law. Period. It might not be officially DEEMED (yet) to be UnConstitutional, but that wouldn't change it from being what it is: a clear violation of the Constitution.
FDR did such, by Executive Order, but not by Congressional enactment.